Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NORWICH EXTENSION BILL [Lords]

WISBECH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

MERCHANTS HOUSE OF GLASGOW (CREMATORIUM) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

GRANTON HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Granton Harbour," presented by Mr. McNeil; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Greenock Port and Harbours," presented by Mr. McNeil; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Commissions

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken to encourage aircrew entrants

of a sufficiently high quality for appointment to commission.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The policy of the Air Council is to commission all pilots and navigators who show themselves to be of the standard required for commissioned rank. All possible steps are being taken by publicity, liaison with schools and other means, to improve the quality of the entry.

Wing Commander Bullus: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with the number and calibre of the present applicants?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir.

Volunteer Reserve (Training)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Secretary of State for Air what advance training types of aircraft are being used for the training of suitably qualified aircrew in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve; and what steps are being taken to make operational types of aircraft available to this Reserve.

Mr. A. Henderson: No advanced training aircraft are provided for the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve. To provide such aircraft for the R.A.F.V.R., as now organised, would involve considerable expenditure and could, at present, only be done at the expense of the Regular Service. A number of members of the R.A.F.V.R. are, however, carrying out their annual training at stations in operational commands, where they are given experience on operational aircraft.

Wing Commander Bullus: In view of the deplorable state of our air defences, will the Minister consider making such aircraft available to the R.A.F.V.R. for training purposes?

Mr. Henderson: I should like to refute any suggestion that the state of the air defences of this country is deplorable. I think that the hon. and gallant Member will agree, on reflection, that that is rather an undesirable statement to make in present circumstances. As regards the question of improving the quality and type of aircraft for those who are training in the R.A.F.V.R., I agree that as soon as circumstances permit we ought to introduce more modern types.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Is it the lack of money or interference with other training which is the vital reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot take this step now?

Mr. Henderson: In a sense, it is a combination of the two. Taking the position as it is today, what we have concentrated upon is providing the Regular training schools with the latest types of training aircraft—namely, the Balliol. That has just begun to come off the production lines. I think it is common sense that for the moment we should concentrate upon using the available supplies of Balliols for the Regular training schools. I do not think that if we had more money available any more of these aircraft would be coming off the production lines than at the present time. As with other types, production usually starts with a trickle and grows as time goes on.

Mr. Macmillan: It is not a question of money?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir.

Air Commodore Harvey: What percentage of reservists carry out their training on service fighters?

Mr. Henderson: I do not wish to mislead the House as regards numbers, and all I can say is that there are only three Commands at the moment which can take these R.A.F.V.R. officers. Those are the three operational Commands other than Fighter Command, and they are able to take, in any one fortnightly period, 12 pilots, 41 navigators and 38 signallers.

Mr. Profumo: As the Minister refutes "deplorable," what word would he use to describe the state of our air defences?

Mr. Henderson: I am not prepared to discuss that at the present time.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not satisfied with the calibre and number of air crew entrants would he not consider that to be deplorable?

Mr. Henderson: No, but I think it is unsatisfactory.

Wing Commander Bullus: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the remarks made yesterday by Air Chief Marshall Sir Guy Garrod, who described our defences as seriously deficient?

Mr. Henderson: We are all entitled to our opinion, and that is the opinion of the gentleman who made the statement.

Radar

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will bring into full operational use further radar stations and give particular attention to those providing low coverage.

Mr. A. Henderson: The radar defences of the United Kingdom are being modernised and extended. Additional stations, including those designed for low cover are included in the programme.

Captain Duncan: In the event of hostilities breaking out, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman able to assure the House that fully trained radar personnel are available to man all the stations with up-to-date equipment?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir, if we include those who have had war experience, but I could not say that we have got 100 per cent. in the fighter control units as the percentage at the moment is 25 per cent.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the great importance of radar warning from the point of view of Civil Defence?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. I certainly will.

Captain Duncan: What steps are being taken to train the Reserve forces in up-to-date equipment?

Mr. Henderson: Those who are volunteer members of the fighter control units that are in existence throughout the country are already receiving the requisite training.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to check "Z" reserves so far as radar operators are concerned, to see whether we are in a position to man our air defences on a 24-hour basis at the shortest notice?

Mr. Henderson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have already done that. We are in a position today to call up all those who have had previous war experience in control and reporting units.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Air what


steps are being taken to provide adequate training for ex-war-time experienced radar mechanics and operators.

Mr. A. Henderson: All necessary steps have been taken to provide such training if circumstances require. Training facilities are already available for exwar-time experienced radar mechanics and operators in the fighter control units and Radar Reporting Units of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and also in the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve. I welcome this opportunity of emphasising again the urgent need in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force for men and women who had war experience in control and reporting units.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how much training is going on now?

Mr. Henderson: I cannot say, off-hand, the number of days on which these volunteers are required to attend, but I think it is 30 a year. I am advised that they are quite adequate to turn them into well-trained operators.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the war groups operating these stations numbered 17,000, and can he say what proportion of these have been written to? Will he check up on the register because I, for one, have not been written to, and, therefore, it is not right for him to say that all have been written to?

Mr. Henderson: I did not say they had been written to. I said we were in a position to call them up when circumstances required, and if the hon. Gentleman will make inquiries he will find that his name and address are in the appropriate place.

Tradesmen

Mr. Profumo: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the new structure for Royal Air Force tradesmen has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. A. Henderson: The new trade structure for the R.A.F. has now been completed, and I hope to make an announcement next week.

Pay and Conditions

Mr. Profumo: asked the Secretary of State for Air when the Departmental committees considering the condition of pay and service in the Royal Air Force are expected to complete their inquiries; and when he hopes to be able to make a statement.

Mr. A. Henderson: The comprehensive examination of life in the Services in all its aspects, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 16th March, is being pressed forward as quickly as possible, but I am unable to say when it will be completed.

Mr. Profumo: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the whole of the future of the Air Force and the new recruits to that Service depends on the reports from these committees? Does he not think that the situation is sufficiently serious for him to use his good offices to have their reports speeded up?

Mr. Henderson: I welcome anything which helps recruiting.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give any estimate of when this survey will be completed?

Mr. Henderson: I would not like to commit myself, but, as I say in my answer, I do not think it will be very long.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Will it be a matter of weeks, months, or years?

Mr. Henderson: As I say I would not like to commit myself, but I hope it will be a matter of weeks.

Squadron Leader Burden: Does the Minister realise that a great many officers in the Force are at the present moment in serious financial difficulties, and that their experience is one of the causes of the lack of recruitment at the moment? Unless and until the Government do something about pay and allowances we shall not get the recruitment which is absolutely necessary.

Courts Martial (Notices)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for Air when he intends to reintroduce in his Department the system of notifying the Press and the public of impending courts martial; and by what method.

Mr. A. Henderson: Instructions were given to all commands on 15th July for notice of forthcoming Air Force courts martial to be posted at or near headquarters of the group at which they arc convened.

Transport

Mr. John Grimston: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken to form an air transport reserve from the men and equipment of the private charter operators.

Mr. A. Henderson: Proposals for the formation of R.A.F.V.R. transport squadrons associated with civil charter firms are under examination, and I hope to make an announcement when final details have been settled.

Mr. J. Grimston: asked the Secretary of State for Air what plans he has for obtaining United States equipment in the event of it becoming necessary to strengthen Transport Command.

Mr. A. Henderson: It would be possible to strengthen Transport Command without recourse to United States equipment.

Mr. Grimston: Is it not the fact that many of the aircraft employed by this Command, which is lamentably low in strength, are, in fact, American, and will need American replacement?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. Transport Command is equipped with British modern machines, such as Hastings and Valettas.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Could we have an assurance that no D.C.3s are flying in Transport Command, because we have the impression that these aircraft are being used in numbers?

Mr. Henderson: There may be at the most one squadron.

Grounded Aircraft (Repair)

Mrs. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Air what repair organisation there is to deal with grounded aircraft such as the Vampire so that they can be returned to useful service and so keep up the fighter strength.

Mr. A. Henderson: Royal Air Force servicing organisation backed by repair facilities provided by the aircraft industry is immediately available to remedy any

defects that arise in any type of R.A.F. aircraft. I want to make it clear that the R.A.F. Vampires have not been grounded.

Clothing (Price)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Air if that element in the pay of officers in the Royal Air Force which is intended to provide for the purchase of such articles as shoes and battle-dress is intended to cover also the Purchase Tax on such articles.

Mr. A. Henderson: Officers are required to maintain their uniform themselves, paying the ordinary prices, including Purchase Tax. Though rates of pay take account of this obligation, it is not represented by an identifiable Purchase Tax element. R.A.F. officers are allowed Income Tax rebate on £25 a year up to the rank of flight lieutenant and on £30 above that rank for uniform maintenance.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is there any reason why these uniforms should not be utility. and, therefore, free of Purchase Tax?

Mr. Henderson: Perhaps that suggestion will be considered.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Air what prices are paid respectively by airmen and officers for gym shorts from Royal Air Force stores, the reference number of which is 22b/888, showing how much of the price charged to officers is constituted by the price to officers as given in Air Publication 1086, departmental expenses, and purchase tax, respectively.

Mr. A. Henderson: The price paid by an officer for this item is 10s. 6d., which includes 8d. for Departmental expenses and 2s. 8d. for Purchase Tax. The price paid by an airman is 1s. 9d.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is not this a typical example of an undesirable discrepancy between the prices paid by officers and by airmen for articles issued from the same source and used alike by them? Is not this a case of Purchase Tax being paid on Departmental expenses?

Mr. Henderson: The problem has not originated in the last year of two. It goes back to the policy which decided that officers should pay for their uniforms out of their pay, whereas other ranks


should have their uniforms provided free. The price that is paid for this or any other similar article of attire is the same in both cases. The difference between the allowance given to the other ranks, which I think is 2s. a week, and the amount of the contract price, is paid for by the Air Ministry, and, in the case of the other Departments, by the Admiralty and the War Office. I would remind the noble Lord that the price paid by the officer is less than is paid for the same article by the civilian.

New Flying-Boat

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made with a new flying-boat to replace the Sunderland; and when it is expected to make its first flight.

Mr. A. Henderson: This is a long-term development and it would not be in the public interest to give this information.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Sunderland is 15 years' old, and that it is about time we had a new flying-boat coming along?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir, and one is in process of being developed.

Coastal Command (Strength)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken to increase the strength of Coastal Command, in view of the increasing difficulty of detecting and destroying enemy submarines.

Mr. A. Henderson: Re-equipment of Coastal Command squadrons with Shackletons and Hastings is beginning this year. We are planning a substantial expansion of the command, but it would not be in the public interest for me to give details.

Air Commodore Harvey: is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is great concern in the country at the exceedingly small number of operational flying boats in the Royal Air Force? Will he treat this with the utmost priority with his colleagues and get something moving very quickly?

Mr. Henderson: We are already doing that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's difficulty in answering this and the previous Question, indicate how essential it is that the Government should accede to the demand of the Opposition for a Debate in secret Session on defence.

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question.

Refresher Training

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will take steps to provide refresher training for pilots, navigators and radio operators who for various reasons are out of practice and whose services would be required in a national emergency.

Mr. A. Henderson: Refresher training facilities for pilots, navigators and signallers are available at Reserve Flying Schools for all who are prepared to join the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve. I hope that as many war-time aircrew as possible will avail themselves of this training.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are some ex-aircrew who are too old to join the Reserve? Will he give facilities for ex-aircrew people like myself to keep in training in case the need for our services should, unfortunately, arise?

Mr. Henderson: I should be very glad to have the services of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mustang Aircraft, Korea

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent Mustang fighter aircraft have been used in Korea by our Forces; and what have been the results.

Mr. A. Henderson: The R.A.F. has no Mustangs. I understand, however, that the Royal Australian Air Force and the United States Air Force are operating these aircraft in Korea with excellent results, but I am unable to give precise details.

Mr. Hughes: Could my right hon. and learned Friend tell us if it is possible for the pilot of a Mustang fighter to recognise ground troops? Is he aware that


the American troops are complaining that they have been shot by their own aircraft, and will he investigate this matter?

Mr. Henderson: That is not a question for me, but for the United States Government. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he could address his inquiry to the troops of North Korea they would say that the pilots were only too well able to recognise them.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Could the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) be persuaded to act as observer?

Mr. Blackburn: Is the Minister aware that this country as a whole entirely supports what is now being done by the Royal Air Force, in so far as they are capable of being used in Korea?

Singapore (Radar Defence)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of present circumstances, he will take steps to strengthen the radar defence of Singapore.

Mr. A. Henderson: The statement quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for North Wembley (Wing-Commander Bullus) last week, that the radar defence of Singapore is non-existent, is completely without foundation. Radar cover for Singapore is already in existence. We are also sending further radar equipment from this country in the near future in accordance with plans formulated some time ago. I am advised by the Commander-in-Chief that the statement that there had been angry talk in R.A.F. circles about the state of the defences of Singapore is also completely without foundation.

Air Commodore Harvey: While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask what arrangements are being made to man these radar stations? Is he calling upon local men in Malaya as volunteers, to ensure sufficient personnel to man the new stations?

Mr. Henderson: They will be supplemented by local people, but otherwise manned by Regular members of the Royal Air Force.

Aircraft (Identification)

Mr. Beswick: I am always in favour of Secretary of State for Air what concrete and detailed methods he has for identifying military and non-military aircraft of Allied nations.

Mr. A. Henderson: The identification of aircraft of Allied nations is undertaken by the air traffic control organisation and by electronic methods. It would not be in the public interest to give details.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether we have teleprinter networks and movement liaison sectors going which will enable these signals to be put through quickly, because with the high speeds and vast numbers of aircraft since the war, the need for speed is paramount?

Mr. Henderson: If the hon. Gentleman wishes really to press that question he had better put it down.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Small Aerodromes

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will make a statement on the future need of the small aerodromes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): I anticipate that small aerodromes will continue to be required for charter flights, flying clubs and private fliers. It is not intended to acquire such aerodromes for the State, and local interests will continue to be responsible for their upkeep.

Mr. Smith: In cases where aerodromes will never meet modern needs, would the Minister be prepared to consult municipalities so that the aerodromes might no longer be used for their present purpose, and if that is in the national interest, be used for better purposes, like housing?

Mr. Beswick: If the aerodromes are municipally owned and the need for such aerodromes is not apparent, it would be within the power of the municipality to give up the operation of that airport.

Mr. Smith: In cases where these places are municipally owned, they


depend upon the Ministry for expert advice. Would the Ministry advise the municipality whether or not such aerodromes will he required in the future?

Mr. Beswick: Certainly; we shall be pleased to give advice on any problem of this character with which municipality is confronted.

Airports, North of England

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he intends to make Manchester, Blackpool and Liverpool, the air ports for the north of England; and, if so, can he make a statement for the guidance of the people and industry so that they may plan for some time ahead.

Mr. Beswick: So far as can be foreseen, these three aerodromes will continue to be operated for internal scheduled services, Liverpool also continuing to be used for services to the Irish Republic and Manchester for services to Europe. I cannot at present say whether other aerodromes in the north of England will be needed for scheduled operations.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In regard to Manchester Airport, is it the intention of the Department to leave it under the control of the local authority?

Mr. Beswick: We are at present in discussion with the Manchester Corporation on that point.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be desirable to have a yard-stick whereby municipal and Government efficiency could be measured one against the other?

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Would the Parliamentary Secretary take notice of the fact that the County Palatine forms only part of the north of England, and give attention to the county of York adjoining, and particularly to aerodromes in Leeds and Bradford?

Mr. Beswick: Discussions are already taking place with some municipalities in Yorkshire. I should certainly hope that the air network will be extended over that part of the country in the future.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Could I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Beswick: I am always in favour of having the yard-stick as a measure.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Is it not the case that the discussions to which the Parliamentary Secretary refers have been going on for a considerable number of years? Will he consider doing something to get a definite decision on the matter?

Mr. Beswick: The hon. Gentleman should put a Question down on that point.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will take steps to approve helicopter or small plane feeder services from the large centres to the airports of Manchester, Blackpool and Liverpool.

Mr. Beswick: My noble Friend will continue to consider any recommendations made to him by the Air Transport Advisory Council on applications received from private companies to operate scheduled feeder services to these and other aerodromes as associates of British European Airways.

Mr. Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is some uneasiness in industry about this matter and that speed in delivery and in consultation will be most potent matters in the future, and give rise to the need for feeder services? Could he give an undertaking that early consideration will be given to the need for organising feeder services?

Mr. Beswick: The main services for which the corporation are responsible are already operating. If there are private companies who wish to apply for an associate agreement to operate feeder services we shall be pleased to consider those applications.

Mr. Smith: Is it not the intention of the Ministry to set up feeder services on their own, or to encourage private enterprise to organise them to large municipal aerodromes like that at Ringway?

Mr. Beswick: In the future, not necessarily this year or next, it is hoped that a combination of corporation services and feeder services, operated by private enterprise under associate agreements, will cover the country.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister arrange feeder services from the principal services in Scotland to Prestwick, as they are very seriously needed?

Mr. Speaker: Scotland does not come into this Question. We are dealing with Manchester, Blackpool and
Liverpool.

International Conference, Montreal

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is aware that the United Kingdom delegate at the recent International Civil Aviation Organisation conference in Montreal advocated the internationalisation of air transport; and what consultations were held with the Dominion Governments before taking this action.

Mr. Beswick: The policy of international ownership and operation advocated by the United Kingdom delegate at Montreal has been consistently supported by the United Kingdom since the first meeting of the Provisional International Civil Aviation Organisation in 1946. This policy has been discussed with members of the Commonwealth, who are well aware of our views.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if I may borrow his expression, some of the Dominions have "seen the light" since these consultations took place and have changed their Governments? Did he discuss this with both Australia and New Zealand before going to I.C.A.O. and recommending this action?

Mr. Beswick: The question which arises is whether they have seen the right light.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Are the Dominion Governments still in accord with the British Government's point of view in the matter?

Mr. Beswick: No, Sir. We now have different views, which have been expressed at the international conference.

Solent Flying Boats

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what was the total cost of developing and purchasing the Solent flying boats, including the cost of development of the flying boat bases along the routes to South Africa, and the cost of the Southampton base.

Mr. Beswick: It would be contrary to established practice to disclose the contract prices of these flying boats. The development expenditure of the bases, including Southampton, which was directly attributable to Solent operations, is about £250,000.

Mr. Cooper: Would my hon. Friend agree that the whole policy of B.O.A.C. in the past with regard to its aircraft has been hesitant, muddled and unnecessarily costly, and is he satisfied that the same line of policy is not being pursued at the present time?

Mr. Beswick: I agree that their operations have been costly, and that is because they have had to be carried out with the aircraft available. At the time the Solent services were started, the Solent was the only aircraft available for those services.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Why is it against the public interest to tell the House the cost of developing and purchasing the Solent flying boats? After all, they are civil machines and not war machines.

Mr. Beswick: It is quite true that the Solent is a civil machine. This is a civil commercial contract as between a buyer and a seller. It is a commercial transaction between the Corporation and the manufacturer and it is not, therefore, of advantage to publish the price.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman correct in saying that it is between the Corporation and the manufacturer? Are not these aircraft the property of the Ministry of Supply? Will he look into the matter and make a statement to the House at a later date?

Mr. Beswick: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman cares to put down another Question, I shall be glad to answer it.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: As the British taxpayer is being called upon to subsidise the cost of these machines, should not the House be informed of their cost?

Helicopter Service, Wales

Mr. Watkins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what support is being given to the experimental helicopter service between Cardiff, Wrexham and Liverpool; and what prospects there are of extending such service to other important centres in North and South Wales.

Mr. Beswick: I am informed that for the first month the passenger load factor on this service averaged about 45 per cent. The present service is running at a substantial loss, which is at present justified by the experience being gained from the operation of a scheduled service, but there can be no question of substantially extending helicopter services until a more economic type can be brought into operation.

Services, Cornwall

Mr. Hayman: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what are the prospects of better civil flying services to Cornwall.

Mr. Beswick: Apart from the present Land's End-Scilly Islands service, British European Airway's plans for the immediate future include no services touching Cornwall. I should add that application for an associate agreement on the route Manchester—Newquay has been provisionally
approved.

Mr. Hayman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is only one service to Plymouth one way each day? Can he do something to see that this service is improved?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHUMAN PLAN

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will seek an assurance from the French that in discussing the details of the Schuman Plan no increase of iron and steel productive capacity will be created without consultation with us.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): As the hon. Member will doubtless be aware, the immediate objective of the six Power discussions now proceeding in Paris is to draft a convention for the establishment of a special high authority for the coal and steel industries. The discussions are, in fact, still in a preliminary stage and, therefore, the situation envisaged in the Question does not at present arise.

Miss Ward: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since I put down my Question, Holland has decided to transfer her buying of coal from this country to Germany? Will the hon. Gentleman

protect the full employment interests of the iron and steel workers and miners of this country?

Mr. Younger: We all want to do that. but I do not think that it arises out of the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA (SOVIET PROPAGANDA)

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Persia has recently been subjected to an increased radio propaganda from the Caucasus, that a hostile note has been sent from Moscow to Teheran; and whether he will consult with the United States of America and with friendly neighbouring States like Turkey with a view to countering this.

Mr. Younger: I am aware that Soviet propaganda has recently devoted much attention to Persia and that the Soviet Government have addressed two Notes to the Persian Government protesting against alleged activities of the Persian Oil Company in areas adjacent to Soviet territory. His Majesty's Government are. of course, in constant touch with the United States Government and as occasion may arise with other friendly Governments on questions affecting the security of the Middle East. On 19th May, my right hon. Friend reaffirmed His Majesty's Government's policy of support to Persia in her efforts to safeguard her independence and territorial integrity, and a similar statement was made by Mr. Acheson.

Mr. Price: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that Persia is a country where another Korea might easily be staged?

Brigadier Head: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time our propaganada in Persia is still deplorable and that it is not co-ordinated with that of the United States? Is it not high time that the Foreign Office took steps to improve our propaganda in the whole of the Middle East?

Mr. Younger: I am not prepared to admit the implications of that supplementary question, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to have any particular information about it perhaps he will put a Question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

H.M. Minister and Bishop of Korea

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received to the inquiries addressed by him to the Soviet Government concerning the whereabouts and fate of His Majesty's Minister in Seoul and the Bishop of Korea.

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is yet in a position to say what has happened to Captain Holt, the British Minister in Seoul, South Korea, since the capital was over-run by the Communists.

Mr. Younger: I have nothing further to add to the statement made on 17th July in reply to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling).

Mr. Maclean: Can the Minister say what steps are being taken to secure the return of His Majesty's Minister to civilisation?

Mr. Younger: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said two days ago, we are considering how that can be done. It will be appreciated that in the existing circumstances it is not a simple problem.

Mr. Gammans: Can the hon. Gentleman say if he has any news as to how Captain Holt and the Bishop are being treated?

Mr. Younger: No, Sir. I do not think we have anything in addition to what has already been said in the House.

Mr. Braine: In the course of his inquiry, has the hon. Gentleman gleaned any information of the whereabouts of Commissioner Lord of the Salvation Army, who elected voluntarily to remain behind in Seoul?

Mr. Younger: Apart from Mr. Holt, we do not know the whereabouts of anybody mentioned by name, but we know that a number of other members of the British Colony are with Mr. Holt.

Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman make the strongest possible representations to the Soviet Government to secure the return of His Majesty's Minister?

Mr. Younger: That is the channel through which we received our information, and we are considering whether we can do anything further.

Geneva Convention

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that British elements are included in the United Nations Forces under General MacArthur's command, he will make representations to the Governments of South Korea and North Korea to end the atrocities to prisoners and civilians.

Mr. Younger: I understand that both Governments have now, in response to Mr. Trygve Lie's appeal, announced their intention to apply the principles of the Geneva Prisoners-of-War Convention.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that "The Times" of 14th July reports the horrible spectacle of the mass execution of prisoners? Can he now assure us that these executions are not to continue on our side?

Mr. Younger: I have absolutely no evidence that they have taken place on our side. There is no official confirmation of the various stories appearing in the Press and, therefore, I do not think I should comment upon them.

U.K.-Soviet Discussions

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement regarding the discussions on Korea at present in progress between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government.

Mr. Younger: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs assured the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) on 17th July, we will endeavour to make a statement as soon as possible. I can only repeat, therefore, that we are most willing to make such a statement at the earliest practicable moment; but that moment has not yet arrived.

Mr. Maclean: In order that there may be no misapprehension on this point, will the Minister make it perfectly clear that it is no longer the policy of His Majesty's Government to endeavour to secure the


admission of a Chinese Communist representative to the Security Council, however much pressure may be brought to bear on him by Moscow, by Pekin, or by the benches behind him?

Mr. Younger: I do not think that arises out of the Question.

Mr. Eden: Could the Government give us any indication of when they think they can make this correspondence public? I am quite sure they do not want to hold it up longer than they possibly can help. Would it be some day this week?

Mr. Younger: It might be, but I do not think I can give an undertaking to that effect at the moment.

Mr. Eden: Could the Government give us any indication of when they think they can make this correspondence public? I am quite sure they do not want to hold it up longer than they possibly can help. Would it be some day this week?

Mr. Younger: It might be, but I do not think I can give an undertaking to that effect at the moment.

Mr. Eden: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that to hold up this correspondence too long does give rise to rumours which, personally, I am sure are unjustified? The sooner everything is known by everybody the better all round.

Mr. Younger: I think we are conscious of that, and of the general desire on the matter.

Major Tufton Beamish: Has the Minister noticed that the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) might have been dictated by the Kremlin?

[That this House, having, without a division, supported His Majesty's Government in its acceptance of the United Nations Security Council's decision on Korea, nevertheless remains profoundly anxious that the peace of the world shall be preserved and to that end urges His Majesty's Government to prepare the way for a world settlement by using its best endeavours to limit the area of conflict; to bring about a cessation of hostilities and mediation in Korea under the authority of the United Nations; to urge the withdrawal of United States forces from Formosa; to secure the admission of the recognised Chinese People's Government into the Security Council; to take the initiative in bringing about an early meeting of representatives of all the great Powers, including India, to consider what action can be taken, either on Mr. Trygve Lie's proposals or otherwise, to strengthen the United Nations

and to end the cold war which is fraught with such dire perils to the survival of civilisation and of mankind.]

Mr. James Hudson: Did the answer of the hon. Gentleman, which I heard imperfectly, imply that there is to be some consideration of the withdrawal of the recognition of China by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Younger: No, Sir, it did not imply anything of the kind.

Egyptian Government Statement

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, now that the Egyptian Government have issued a statement concerning their attitude to events in Korea, he will make a further statement as to whether he proposes to discontinue the supply of arms to that country.

Mr. Younger: The statement made by the Egyptian Minister for Foreign Affairs on 11th July was disappointing in a number of respects. In particular, it confirms that the Egyptians still feel unable to associate themselves with the second resolution of the Security Council calling on members of the United Nations to render assistance to Southern Korea, from which they abstained.
The statement makes it clear, however, that the Egyptian Government, by voting in favour of the first resolution, join in condemnation of North Korean aggression. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government do not at the moment contemplate any change in their policy regarding the supply of arms to Egypt. The matter remains, however, under constant review.

Mr. Mikardo: Has the theory always been that we supply arms to the Egyptions to enable them to play their part in collective defence against aggression? Now that they have made it clear that they do not wish to play any part in collective defence under the United Nations, what possible justification can there be for our continuing the supply of arms?

Mr. Younger: I think it is right to say that it has been made clear by the Egyptian Minister for Foreign Affairs that the attitude of his Government related to this particular resolution, and


should not be necessarily applied to any wider or different conflicts.

Mr. Eden: But is not the position that we are still supplying arms, that Egypt still does not adhere to this joint resolution, and that she still stops our tankers going through the Suez Canal, which really seems that she is getting away with too much?

Mr. Younger: I think that the facts of the right hon. Gentleman are, unfortunately. correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (OIL SUPPLIES)

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs his policy in regard to the supply of oil to China in the present circumstances.

Mr. Younger: Service Departments have found it necessary to take over stocks of oil from British controlled sources in the Far East (from which deliveries to China are made) for their own requirements in connection with the action being taken in support of the Security Council resolutions on Korea. In view of this the question of the supply of oil to China does not arise.

Mr. Maclean: Does that mean that no oil is reaching the Chinese Communist authorities?

Mr. Younger: It means that no oil from British controlled sources is now going to North China or Korea.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of the British oil companies has throughout been governed by that of the British Government and that since the Korean D-day no supplies have been going to North China? Is he aware that previously the supplies to South China were largely kerosene?

Mr. Younger: I think that is correct.

Major Beamish: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if increased supplies of oil become available the Government will allow no oil or oil products of any kind to go to Communist China?

Mr. Younger: I do not think that there are any probabilities of that. The supplies, in any case, were very small and are all required for our purposes.

Major Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a world glut of oil at the moment and that supplies may well become available? May we have the assurance for which I have asked?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAB REFUGEES (ASSISTANCE)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct the British representative on the Advisory Commission to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to propose that all possible assistance should be given to those Arab families, members of which were deposited in the desert Wadi Araba on 31st May after severe ill-treatment.

Mr. Younger: Instructions on these lines have already been sent to the British representative on the Advisory Commission, who will by now have taken the necessary action.

Major Legge-Bourke: While I welcome that, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to see, at the same time, if there is anything that can be done to prevent the Israeli Army apparently adopting the same methods which the Nazis used, including the tearing out of fingernails?

Mr. Younger: I understand that the matter is under consideration by the Mixed Armistice Commission. There are, of course, conflicting accounts of this incident.

Mr. Janner: May I ask my hon. Friend to advise that these rash and wicked statements about ill-treatment should not be made, and that hon. Members should take very careful note of facts and not of fancies?

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister examine the photograph which I have in my hand of one of these men with his fingernails torn out?

Mr. Younger: I think that this is a matter which, if it is to be investigated. should be investigated by the Mixed Armistice Commission and not by His Majesty's Government. There are conflicting accounts, and I can make no comment as to their accuracy.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.K. AND ROUMANIA (DIPLOMATIC STAFFS)

Mr. John Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that British diplomatists in Bucharest are not allowed outside that capital, similar steps will be taken to see that Roumanian diplomatists do not move outside London without special permission.

Mr. Younger: Members of His Majesty's Legation in Bucharest are allowed outside the capital. The question. therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Rodgers: If I can produce evidence to the contrary, will the Minister reconsider that answer?

Mr. Younger: Yes, of course, If it turns out that restrictions are reimposed, we might have to reconsider the other part of the question, but our information at present is that those restrictions to which I think the hon. Gentleman is referring were only imposed for a very short time and are now no longer in force.

Mr. Rodgers: The information I have is that these limitations are still imposed on members of our Mission in Bucharest.

Mr. Braine: When will the Minister get tough in defence of British interests?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (SECRETARIAT)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proportion of the secretariat of the United Nations are nationals of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China or any of the satellite States of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Younger: On 31st August, 1949, the proportions were: Soviet Union, 1.2 per cent.; China, 6 per cent.; Poland, 2.5 per cent.; Czechoslovakia, 1.9 per cent; Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary, each 0.2 per cent.

Mr. Russell: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that all members of the United Nations secretariat should be in sympathy with the action taken by the Security Council over Korea?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that the United Nations is a world organisation, and that great pains have been taken to try to draw its staff from all members of the United Nations.

Sir Herbert Williams: Could I ask the hon. Gentleman how many people 1.2 per cent. represents?

Mr. Younger: I could not give the answer to that without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — PACIFIC PACT PROPOSAL

Brigadier Smyth: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will initiate discussions with a view to the establishment in the near future of a Pacific Pact on the same lines as the Atlantic Pact.

Mr. Younger: The answer is "No, Sir."

Brigadier Smyth: Is the Minister not aware that there is considerable feeling at the present time that the ordinary, leisurely methods of diplomacy are just not good enough in the present situation, and that it is most urgent that the non-Communist. peace-loving nations of the Pacific should get together and make a plan if the next world war is to be averted?

Mr. Gammans: Does the answer of the Minister, "No, Sir," mean that the Government are not in favour of a Pacific Pact or that they are not going to do anything about it?

Mr. Younger: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman would look at the Question he will see that my reply meant that His Majesty's Government will not initiate discussions with a view to the establishment in the near future of a Pacific Pact.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the concern about Deception Island by Members of the Opposition, could the Minister say if he is considering an Antarctic Pact?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE (JEHOVAH WITNESSES)

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why missionaries of the creed known as Jehovah


Witnesses are not being permitted to enter the Gold Coast, Kenya, the Gambia, Nigeria and Fiji.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): Certain Colonial Governments have imposed restrictions on the entry of representatives of this society, because experience has shown that its teaching may have very harmful results in colonial communities. This is a question which Colonial Governments are best able to judge, and I do not consider that it would be appropriate for me to interfere with their discretion in this matter.

Mr. Macdonald: Can the Secretary of State quote any incidents in the last 10 years which can be attributed to this society, and if so, is he quite certain that they have not been made the scapegoat by some political, religious or other body for such incidents?

Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir. It is my desire as Colonial Secretary, and, indeed, of the Colonial Governments, to afford the maximum religious liberty and tolerance. When I first heard of this I went into it carefully myself. I am satisfied that their teaching of opposition to all kinds of authority does create difficulty.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

University Courses

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provision there will be at the new West Indian University for West Indians to take studies in home-making subjects and the crafts of the islands.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I understand that the University College of the West Indies does not at present contemplate making provision for these studies

Miss Ward: In view of the importance of these studies to the West Indians, would the right hon. Gentleman go into the matter to see whether such courses could not be initiated in this University?

Mr. Griffiths: The University is an autonomous body. I will convey the suggestion of the hon. Lady to them.

Unemployment

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the policy

recommended in the West Indies for dealing with unemployment among adolescents.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As the answer is rather long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
West Indian Governments recognise that unemployment among adolescents is a special problem. In the three Colonies for which recent information is available in the Colonial Office, the position is as follows. In British Guiana, a juvenile employment exchange service has recently been inaugurated. Apprenticeship schemes in building and engineering trades are also being started under the Industrial Training Ordinance.
In Trinidad, arrangements for vocational guidance and the placing of those leaving school are based on the United Kingdom system, but are still in the experimental stage. There are plans for the early extension of the present limited facilities for pre-vocational and technical training. The establishment of farming institutes and farming schools for training adolescents in agriculture and husbandry is also being actively considered.
In Jamaica, the question of unemployment among adolescents is being studied; in view of the general unemployment situation and of the financial position of the Government, it has not yet been possible to formulate a definite policy. Legislation regarding apprenticeship is, however being drafted in the light of a report prepared by a local committee and a survey to determine the absorptive capacity of various industries for skilled workers who have completed apprenticeship training has already been carried out.

Jamaica (Dispute)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take to settle the dispute concerning the leadership of the Maroons of Accompong; and who it at present recognised officially as their colonel.

Mr. J. Griffiths: According to my latest information, the question of arranging for an election still presented difficulties, but a further attempt to arrange one was to be made shortly. I will ask the Governor


about present leadership and if any progress has been made, and will write to my hon. Friend when I have the reply.

Mr. Driberg: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that necessarily rather inconclusive answer, may I ask if he can say whether it is possible for the Governor to take the initiative in settling this unfortunate dispute among these remarkable people? Has he visited Accompong personally?

Mr. Griffiths: I am in communication with the Governor on those questions.

Oral Answers to Questions —  GOLD COAST (U.N.E.S.C.O. REPRESENTATIVE)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far Africans were consulted on the Gold Coast before the appointment of Mr. Ollennu to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation as Gold Coast representative; and whether he is aware that Mr. Ollennu is a nominated and not an elected member of the Legislative Council.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Mr. Ollennu was invited to attend the Conference as an adviser to the United Kingdom delegation in a personal capacity and not as representative of the Gold Coast. I am, of course, aware of Mr. Ollennu's status on the Gold Coast Legislative Council.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the debate which followed in the Legislative Council, there was vigorous opposition to this appointment because it was not realised that Mr. Ollenu was appointed in the capacity to which my right hon. Friend refers?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes. It has been our practice for some years past to appoint representatives from the Colonial territories to attend these delegations. Each one has been selected in his personal capacity, and that, I thought, was well known.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES (ADVISORY COUNCIL)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Prime Minister whether the reports of the three panels set up in September, 1949, by the Advisory Council for Wales will be pub-

lished with the report of the Council in the Annual Report of Government action in Wales and Monmouthshire for the year ended 30th June, 1950; and when will the White Paper be published.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): We have not yet received these reports, and until we have seen them I cannot very well say how they will be handled. It is hoped that the White Paper on Wales and Monmouthshire will be published in the early autumn.

Mr. Watkins: Inasmuch as we have previously had an assurance that the report of the Council will be made known to the House, may we have an assurance that the reports of the sub-committees also will be made available to Members of the House?

The Prime Minister: That is an exact repetition of the Question to which I have already replied.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (TRADE UNIONS)

Mr. G. Cooper: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the restriction in certain of the nationalised industries of he activities of legitimate trade unions, he will consider the appointment of a trade union representative to the boards of all such organisations to ensure the legitimate interest of the workers who are members of trades unions employed by such undertakings being looked after.

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any restrictions such as are mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Cooper: How does my right hon. Friend account for the fact that during the last five years, when the Labour Government have been responsible, legitimate trade union interests in the B.B.C. have been continuously thwarted by the Board of Governors and the Director-General? Would my right hon. Friend consider appointing one or more strong trade union representatives to the Board of Governors, so that the interests of the workers can be looked after in this nationalised undertaking?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend has a question to put with regard to the B.B.C., he should put it to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.

Mr. H. A. Price: In view of the answer which the Prime Minister has given, is he prepared to assure the House that employees of nationalised industries are enjoying, and will continue to enjoy, the same freedom in trade union matters as they enjoyed before nationalisation?

Oral Answers to Questions — SIX POINT GROUP (CIRCULAR)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered a circular sent to him by the Six Point Group under the name of its national President, who is the Minister of National Insurance, criticising the policy of His Majesty's Government in respect of Korea; and what action he has taken to preserve the constitutional doctrine of Cabinet responsibility.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My attention has been drawn to this circular and I welcome this opportunity of informing the House of the circumstances in which the name of my right hon. Friend was wrongly associated with it. The Six Point Group is an organisation of which my right hon. Friend has been a member for some years and she became its President, the duties of which office are largely honorary, in 1946. She has not for some time played any active part in this organisation and has not attended a meeting for over two years. She was, of course, quite unaware of the contents of the document to which the hon. Member refers. As soon as she saw it last Saturday morning, she resigned both from the presidency and from her membership of the Group.

Sir H. Williams: In view of the circumstances of this somewhat strange case, will the Prime Minister ask all his colleagues to make sure that they have separated themselves from all the strange organisations to which they have belonged?

Mr. Marlowe: In view of the fact that the right hon. Lady was President of this organisation at the time this document was put out, can the right hon. Gentleman explain what he meant by saying that she was "wrongly associated with it"?

The Prime Minister: Because her name was associated with this resolution, which

she had not seen, and which, so far as I can gather, was something quite out of the purview of the objects of the Group.

Miss Ward: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that if the Government would deal with the outstanding injustices to women there would be no need for these societies to remain in operation? In particular, will he pay attention to the lack of equal pay, to which he and all other parties are committed? May I have an answer?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Is this yet another plot?

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTERN EUROPE (DEFENCE)

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent the integration of the Air Forces, available for the defence of Europe, has been achieved.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): A unified air defence organisation for North-West Europe has been built up. It comprises the Fighter Forces and the control and reporting organisation of the R.A.F., as well as the French, Belgian and Netherlands Air Forces, all of which are equipped with British type jet aircraft and British radar equipment. The Air Forces of Norway and Denmark, which are also equipped with British jet fighters and British radar, will form an additional part of the air defence of the whole theatre.
I should add that the tactical Air Force in Germany and Bomber Command of the R.A.F. are available for the defence of Europe and each will have a particular defence role to fulfil. Headquarters, Air Forces Western Europe, has already been formed under Air Chief Marshal Robb, who will, in war, control the tactical air forces on the Continent and who will also have responsibilities for air defence.

Mr. Watkinson: Is the Minister of Defence quite satisfied that all is being done that can be done at present to build up a strong air defence in Europe as a whole?

Mr. Shinwell: This question related to the integration of air forces, and not to the Continent.

Brigadier Smyth: asked the Minister of Defence whether any large scale exercises with troops are to be carried out in Western Europe this summer by combined Western Union defence Forces.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Defence what Western Union land Forces manœuvres are to be held this year; and what part the British Army is to play in them.

Mr. Shinwell: It is not proposed to hold any combined Western Union land exercise with troops in Western Europe this year. However, the British Army of the Rhine are holding exercises in Germany in which contingents of Western Union armies will take part. Combined Western Union naval exercises, including convoy exercises, have already taken place, and an exercise to test the efficiency of the Western Europe air defence plan will be held later in the year.

Brigadier Smyth: Is the Minister aware that it would give great confidence and encouragement to the nations of Western Europe at this very critical time if they could have some concrete evidence that the provisions of the Brussels Treaty and the Atlantic Pact are being urgently implemented in terms of formations on the ground?

Mr. Shinwell: That is a rather different question from that relating to the matter of exercises.

Mr. Low: The right hon. Gentleman said that there will be B.A.O.R. manœuvres. Will the Royal Air Force and other air forces from Western Union take part in those manœuvres or not?

Mr. Shinwell: I should say offhand that they are bound to be integrated.

Mr. Low: Why "offhand"?

Mr. Vane: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these contingents of Western Union Armies to which he has referred will form a substantial proportion of the total Forces taking part in these exercises, or are they merely skeletons or small detachments?

Mr. Shinwell: That is another question.

Captain Ryder: Can the Minister say whether the naval exercises which he mentioned were considered to be satisfac-

tory, and whether it is proposed to repeat this promising experiment?

Mr. Shinwell: That is not part of the original Question.

Captain Ryder: But it was part of the answer which has been given.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH DEFENCE

Brigadier Smyth: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the recent tour of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and in particular on his official conversations in Egypt, Australia, Pakistan and India on Imperial defence matters.

Mr. Shinwell: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom attach the greatest importance to maintaining the closest relations with the other Commonwealth countries in the field of defence. It was for this reason that the Chief of the Imperial General Staff paid his recent visit to Australia and New Zealand, and took the opportunity to have talks on the way in Egypt, Pakistan and India. These talks were of the greatest value, but I do not propose to enter into details.

Brigadier Smyth: Is the Minister aware that great interest has been taken in this tour of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and that all we have seen in this House is reports in the Press from different parts of the world? Would it not be more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman could give the House an account of the very interesting discussions that took place?

Mr. Shinwell: I hardly think it is customary to present reports to the House of visits of members of the Imperial General Staff.

Brigadier Smyth: I understand that important conversations took place with the Governments of Pakistan and India on the question of some sort of combined defence. Could the Minister not tell us anything at all about that?

Mr. Shinwell: If a specific question is put down, I will do my best to furnish an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (EQUIPMENT)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Defence if he is satisfied that our reserves of military equipment, including vehicles and tanks, are adequate to meet any foreseeable requirement that may be brought about by our treaty obligations.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not propose at present to add to the statement I made last Wednesday.

Brigadier Clarke: I do not recollect the statement of last Wednesday, but will the right hon. Gentleman realise that, whereas he can let the regular Army go down and have inadequate numbers, he cannot let the supply of equipment fall behind, as we cannot get it quickly?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and gallant Member will refresh his memory by looking at the Question he put last Wednesday, he might think I gave an adequate reply.

Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make a statement on this when we have a Debate on defence next week? Would he be prepared to make a statement on this point?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of the Debate taking place next week, but if there should be a Debate, I shall endeavour to give right hon. and hon. Gentlemen the utmost information.

Mr. Churchill: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, who is Minister of Defence, does not know of the repeated and often public demands we have made for a Debate, either in secret Session, or, failing that, in open Session. Has he not heard of any of that?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman and members of the Opposition have asked both for a secret Session and, as an alternative, an open Session. I am aware of that demand, but I am not aware that the matter has been finalised.

Mr. Churchill: I do not wish to ask a hypothetical question and so I will not hang it on the Debate, but will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make some answer to this question if we put it to him next week?

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly; if there should be a Debate I shall do my best to satisfy the natural curiosity of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Churchill: It is not "natural curiosity" to try to know to what extent one's country is being shamefully let down.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has no right to make allegations of that kind until we have been provided with an opportunity of presenting the facts to the House.

Squadron Leader Burden: Is the Minister of Defence not aware that the prevarications and refusal of the Government to give any information are causing considerable concern throughout the country? Is it not time the Government gave hon. Members on this side of the House an opportunity to know as much about our defences as the Soviet Government probably know already?

Mr. Shinwell: The term "prevarications" seems to me to be unduly offensive in the circumstances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but if that is the stock in trade of the hon. and gallant Member, I must accept it. I repeat that if and when a Debate takes place, I shall do all I can to provide the House with adequate information.

EXPLOSION, PORTSMOUTH HARBOUR

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): I will, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, make a statement on the recent explosions in.the ammunition barges in Portsmouth Harbour.
An explosion took place at about 6.45 p.m. on Friday, 14th July, at Bedenham Pier, Portsmouth. It was caused by the detonation of ammunition which was being loaded into an ammunition lighter for transfer to an armament supply issuing ship due to sail in a few days' time for the Far East. Fire brigades fought the flames, but at 7.15 p.m. another ammunition lighter exploded. By 10.30 p.m. the fire was under control and no further explosion occurred. In addition to the damage to Bedenham Pier, nine barges were sunk, or destroyed, damage was caused to houses in the district and windows were broken over a wide area. Five


Admiralty civilian employees and 14 other civilians needed hospital treatment, all for minor injuries.
At present it is not possible to say more than that the fire and subsequent explosions may have been due to defective ammunition, mishandling, or some other breach of the safety regulations, or, possibly, to sabotage. An official inquiry is proceeding. The Admiralty will be guided in any subsequent action by the report of the inquiry.
I wish to express the sincere regret of the Board of Admiralty for the casualties and the damage which has been caused by these explosions. As has already been announced, pending investigation of the cause of the explosions, claims for compensation will be accepted by the Admiralty without prejudice to their legal position.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The House will understand that it is difficult for the Civil Lord to make a fuller statement while the inquiry is in progress, but may I ask two questions? In view of the public disquiet at this and other incidents, would the Civil Lord do his best to be in a position to make a fuller statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess? Secondly, in view of the fact that seven other instances of possible sabotage have been reported since the beginning of last month, including one aircraft carrier, four destroyers and two submarines, does he consider that the security precautions are adequate?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Admiralty must have sufficient time to consider the report of the Board of Inquiry, but I can assure the House that, as soon as we are in a position to make another statement, we shall be only too glad to do so. If we can do it by next week we shall be happy to give it to the House, but it all depends on the consideration of the report. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I can assure the the House that the Admiralty are very disturbed about these occurrences and that every possible step within our power is being taken to maintain the security of the Service.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Admiralty are prepared to take

responsibility for all the damage in this case, and to pay appropriate compensation?

Mr. Edwards: I cannot go any further than the statement made in the Press in regard to the legal issues.

Mrs. Middleton: When my hon. Friend makes a statement to the House, will it include the incidents which have taken place at Devonport and about which I have put a question?

Mr. Edwards: As far as my answer today is concerned, it must be confined to the explosion at Portsmouth.

Brigadier Clarke: Would the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the dockyard workers who stood by and tried to put out the fire and prevented the explosion from spreading?

Mr. Edwards: I am very glad of the opportunity of doing so, and I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that certain questions in regard to the men are being looked at now.

Commander Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman consider issuing a comprehensive report on the other incidents as well?

Mr. Edwards: I must confine myself to this question today, but if a Question is put down dealing with the other incidents, I will, of course, consider the matter.

Mr. Gammans: When the hon. Gentleman spoke of the second ammunition lighter catching alight, did he mean that it caught alight from the earlier explosion, or was it an explosion on its own, quite apart from the other?

Mr. Edwards: The flames from the first lighter extended and, although I must not say too much because the board of inquiry is still sitting, it seems that it might have caught fire from the other one.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[24TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1950–51

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a further sum, not exceeding £40, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Opencast Coal Production for the year ending on the 31st March, 1951, namely:



£


Class VI, Vote 6, Ministry of Fuel and Power
10


Class IX, Vote 5, Ministry of Fuel and Power (War Services)
10


Class VI, Vote 8, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
10


Class VII, Vote 1, Ministry of Works
10


Total
£40

OPENCAST COAL PRODUCTION

3.40 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The Opposition have asked that we should discuss this afternoon the opencast working of coal. I warmly welcome their suggestion, as I think it is high time opencast coal working was debated in this House. I have never disguised the fact that, like other right hon. and hon. Members, I regret some of the results to which opencast working may lead. In the rural areas it may cause inconvenience and grave annoyance to the farmers; it may disfigure the countryside for a certain time and impair its beauty for a longer time; it must mean some loss of food production. In urban areas it may cause discomfort to householders; it may interfere with housing plans; and it may be open to objections of other kinds.
In the United States opencast working is a permanent and important part of the coal industry. In 1947 they obtained 153 million tons by opencast methods. It was from the United States that a Conservative Member of this House brought the idea in 1941. Since then we have

thought of it only as a temporary expedient to help us through a grave national crisis. We have always recognised its disadvantages. We have always sought to minimise them and to make the whole thing as little vexatious as we possibly could. We have asked our people to accept the annoyance and the discomfort which it involves only because we had to have the coal.
I must begin this afternoon by asking the Committee to recognise what an immense service the men who have applied this American technique to the winning of coal have rendered to the nation in the last few years. When we began it we were told by the experts that we might get perhaps 10 million tons. We have in fact had 70 million tons and we may rightly hope for a large tonnage still to come. Of course, during the war years everyone knew that coal was vital; they did not care what it cost in cash, in loss of natural beauty or in other ways.
But let us leave the war years out of account. Let us consider what opencast has meant to Britain since 1945, what it has meant to our recovery and what it means today. Since 1945 we have been engaged in a desperate struggle to regain our economic independence, balance our payments and free ourselves from the need for dollar aid. We have had an export drive for which our people have been asked to make sacrifices of many kinds. Coal has always been a vital factor in our export trade. It has been more so since 1945 than ever before. The promise to furnish coal has helped us to get bilateral agreements with 17 countries—Canada, the Argentine, Denmark, Sweden, Portugal, Egypt and the Netherlands among them. From these countries we have obtained great quantities of food and raw materials which we simply had to have—meat, wheat, feedingstuffs, timber, butter, cotton and iron ore.
In the years 1945–49 we exported 55.9 million tons of coal, which earned us perhaps £126 million of overseas exchange towards the balancing of our trade accounts for the purchase of essential imports which we had to have. In those years we obtained 57 million tons of coal from opencast production. That means that unless we had diverted coal from


other uses we could not have exported a single ton without the opencast supplies.
The enemies of opencast often talk as if we could now do without it. Indeed nearly everything which is said by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) points to that conclusion. But could we? We hope this year for 13 million tons of opencast coal. Where would the hon. Member have us save that quantity? On exports? But the hon. Member's friends are always telling us that we should export more, that we are losing the chance of long-term markets because we have not enough. Would the hon. Member take it from the domestic user and household coal? He is for ever telling us that the householder does not get enough. Would he take it from the power stations? But he and his hon. Friends tell us that we do not give enough electricity to the consumers, especially in the rural districts.
Would the hon. Member take it from industry? Has he reflected what it would mean if 13 million tons less coal were given to industry today? The effect would be catastrophic. If the result on employment were in proportion to the cut in industrial coal supplies it would mean 2,500,000 unemployed. Over the long period it might mean a little fewer but over the short period it would almost certainly mean many more. The truth is that we need every ton of that 13 million tons, and if we could get another 13 million tons we should need that as well.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster said in March that in the last two years the loss on opencast was £1 2s. 6d. per ton. He implied that opencast coal was not worth that serious loss. In the last full financial year up to 1st April, 1950, the loss per ton was not £1 2s. 6d.—it was 3d. At present opencast is paying its way and the Government intend that it shall continue to pay its way.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Including the cost of restoration?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes.

Mr. Nabarro: I should like the Minister to be fair at the outset and compare like with like. If he refers to the speech which I made in March, he will find that the financial result to

which I referred was in respect of the year ended 31st March, 1949, whereas the figures he has quoted of a loss of 3d. per ton referred to the year ended 31st March, 1950.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Even so I think that the hon. Member's error was of the order of about 1,000 per cent. The loss for 1948–49 was 1s. 3d. It may surprise the hon. Member to know that opencast costs are lower than those of deep-mined coal—2s. 6d. per ton less, and these costs include everything—overheads, restoration, compensation to the farmers and all the rest.

Mr. Bracken: And the depreciation on machinery and the cost of wiping out the loss of something like £14 million incurred over the years?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not say that we are wiping out the loss. I say that it is paying its way. That is the point I am making, and that is the point which is relevant to our present operations, but surely the right hon. Gentleman will not say that we ought not to have taken the coal in those years, even if it involved a loss. Of course we had to have it.
The costs are 2s. 6d. per ton less than deep-mined. Much more important, opencast coal requires only a quarter of the manpower that deep-mined coal requires. In the open, big machines can be used which cannot be taken down a pit. The men required for haulage and handling are far fewer. Every man on opencast wins four tons of coal for every ton won by the man who works in the mines.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster. however, has another ready reply. He gave it to us on Thursday last—that open-cast coal is not worth anything anyway.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Member says "Hear, hear." I will quote the hon. Member's words. He says:
Some of it may be good, hut only a tiny percentage; the overwhelming bulk is rubbish.
He went on to tell us that we could only get rid of it by forcing in on the unhappy housewife. He said:
I am reliably informed that last year 5·75 million tons went into domestic consumption.


He told us harrowing stories of the suffering which this opencast coal imposes on the housewife:
Innumerable cases in Birmingham and Kidderminster … of housewives who have to pay 8s. or 10s. or 15s. every fortnight to the dustman to carry away the unburnable part of the ration.…—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 1605–6.]
Let us look at the hon. Member's "reliable information."

Miss Irene Ward: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Major Milner? Are we carrying on the Debate of last week or are we opening a new debate today on the subject of opencast mining?

The Chairman (Major Milner): In reply to the hon. Lady, we are not carrying on the same Debate. This is a fresh Debate on a separate Motion.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman answering the speech made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster last week, or is he giving us an account of the performance of his Department in relation to opencast coal mining.

The Chairman: I cannot interfere in that matter. The way in which a Minister presents his case is his own affair.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps I may say that I am talking about the quality of opencast coal and answering charges made by innumerable critics, including the hon. Member for Kidderminster. If I may, I will go on with the startling arguments which the hon. Member adduced last week. I looked into his reliable information.
Where did the opencast go last year? Who used it? Industry and electricity power stations, 7½ million tons; railways, gas works, etc., 1.2 million tons; domestic users, not 5.75 but 1.5 million tons; exports, 1.2 million tons. Would all these people buy this coal if it were rubbish? Would the foreigner take nearly as much as we give to the domestic user if it were rubbish? The truth is that any general charge about the quality of opencast coal is nonsense. Its quality varies with the seams as does other coal. A million tons of opencast is anthracite, and that anthracite is among the very best we get today. Any general charge against the quality of the opencast given to the domestic consumer is nonsense.
I took the trouble to check the assertions made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster about these unhappy ladies who pay 8s., 10s., and 15s. a fortnight to the dustmen. The salvage departments of Birmingham, Kidderminster Borough and Kidderminster Rural District all assure me that the removal of the refuse, including refuse from coal, is a charge on the rates. No additional charge is made for excess refuse from coal, and they have had no complaints, not one, from any lady that she has had to pay the dustmen to do their duty.

Mr. Nabarro: The dustmen would not complain.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Just consider what the hon. Member asks us to believe. His bottom figure of 8s. a fortnight is over £10 a year. For that sum a road haulier would carry perhaps 12 or 15 tons for a distance of 10 miles and the most coal a housewife in Kidderminster can buy is 50 cwts. a year. The truth is that the 1½ million tons of opencast coal supplied to the domestic user is 5 per cent. of his supplies. So far as the quality is concerned I will quote Sir John Charrington, the late President of the Coal Merchants' Federation and now Chairman of the Chamber of Coal Trades. He said to me:
Opencast is often maligned; and some of it is of quite decent quality, and to be preferred to some of the deep-mined coal. One of the difficulties is that opencast does not stock very well.
That is not a red hot testimonial to the opencast which goes to the domestic consumer, but it is very different from the allegations made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster.
I have dealt at some length with the statements made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster because he has made himself a leader of a school of thought, and because his sayings have been far too widely repeated and believed. I hope he will not resent it if I say, in all friendship, that it will be some time before the House will accept again the extravagant assertions and the alleged statistics with which he makes so free.
Let me turn to the anxieties of those who feel that by opencast we are despoiling too great a part of our farm and forest land, and that the food we lose is a heavy offset against the coal. It is a


legitimate preoccupation which I very fully share. There is, of course, and I do not deny it, some temporary loss of farming land. But let me put it in perspective. In 1945 there were in Britain—I think the figure is a little higher now—31 million acres of arable land and grass. There were 17 million more acres of rough grazing. Of that total of 48 million acres we have requisitioned 58,000 acres of which we have excavated only 20,000.
That, of course, means some loss of food. But the value of the food is, on the average for the last year I could get—I think it is 1947—£23 an acre every year. Opencast is a temporary affair. It means that at the outside the land is withdrawn from cultivation for five years. The loss of food therefore is about £115 an acre even if all the land were kept for five years. But the value which we get from opencast coal is £10,000 per acre that we dig up; over £3,300 per acre of the total land which we requisitioned and withdraw from cultivation. That is more than 30 times as much as the value of the food—

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that in five years the land is totally reinstated in agricultural value?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will deal with that point in a moment. I said it was withdrawn at the outside for five years. As I say, the value of the coal is 30 times as much as the value of the food production for those five years; so that opencast enables us to buy from overseas 30 times as much food as it costs us here at home.
I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). Perhaps there is a permanent loss of food production? Perhaps we spoil the land? If we decided we must have this coal, that we could not sterilise it, and if we took it by drift mining for example, which might often be done, I think the result might be lasting damage and a good deal worse. But with opencast we take great trouble to restore the land.
The technique of restoration has been much improved. At first the top-soil was just kept apart and then put back. Now a cushion of sub-soil is replaced beneath the top-soil where the nature of the land requires it. All large stones and

boulders are taken out of the top three feet of soil. Water supplies are laid on to fields that used not to have them. The Government is ready to make agreements to replace the agricultural drains after the land has settled, it may be after five years or more. Hedges are replaced if the farmer so desires. A technical advisory committee of the Ministry of Agriculture is working constantly on this whole business of restoration and how it may be improved.
Does all this give a real result? No one can say whether there will be some deterioration, or for how long, but I will give a few examples. I am not being frivolous and I am taking the best representative figures I can get. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was taken the other day by a local leader to see the Newcastle Town Common. Half of it had been dug up for opencast and then restored. On the half which had been dug up all the cattle were grazing, and there were no cattle on the half that had been left alone; because it so happened that the grass was a lot better on the part that had been dug up than on the part which was not touched.
In the Midlands, 100 acres were dug up on land where the tenant was a farmer who had won county prizes. Of course, there was bitter and very natural opposition to the interference with his work. But the coal was taken. Now the land is being restored, and the farmer has made up his mind to buy it. He may be getting a special price, I do not know, but in any case he has decided to risk his money on that land.
I will give the Committee the figures of some crop results. On some land in the West Riding, which has been worked for opencast coal, the 10-year average, from 1936 to 1945, was 18·7 cwt. of wheat per acre. The land was worked for coal and then restored, and in 1949 the crops varied from 18 to 20 cwt. per acre. Figures for other sections of the same area which has been worked were, for barley, 17·3 cwt. for the 10-year average, and 17 cwt. in 1949. I have other figures showing almost identical results for other crops. Those figures represent the yields from the general run of restored sites.

Mr. Nugent: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of the acreage sown to cereal crops which yielded these kind of results?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will inquire whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can tell the hon. Member. It was at least 100 acres. I should not like to say more than that.
On the Doric site, at Wentworth, the land was restored to farming in 1946. Two years later, it produced 23 cwt. of wheat per acre. At Leasowes, in Staffordshire, 30,000 tons of coal were taken from 26 acres. The land was restored in 1943, and six years later, in 1949, it yielded 18 cwt. of wheat per acre. Of the 52,000 acres of farming land—6,000 acres are not farming land—which were requisitioned, 14,000 are back in the farmers' hands and 14,000 more are being restored.
What about the water supplies which we are always told are threatened? So far, our prospectors have put down 290,000 boreholes, with 11 million feet of bore. We have had seven complaints that they have affected the water. Two were proved; all were rapidly put right. What about the trees? Twice in my lifetime, at the place which I think the loveliest in Britain, I have seen trees cut down—each time to help to win a war. To beat Hitler, we cut half a million acres of our woodland. In our economic struggle since 1945, we have cut 2,000 acres for opencast coal—2,000 out of the three million which remain. I could give scores of examples of how we have sacrificed coal and saved the trees.
I could take hon. Members to scores of sites where they would find it difficult to tell which places have been dug up, and which have not. Our engineers are not the vandals which they are sometimes made out to be. In the past, thousands of acres were devastated by workings for sand and gravel, for limestone, bricks and china clay. Over 18,000 acres are claimed for sand and gravel alone in the next few years, and 80,000 acres are claimed for ironstone. When I remember these figures, I think of the thousands of acres lost through slagheaps round our deep mines, and I think that the price we have paid for opencast coal—20,000 acres actually dug up and then restored—is relatively small.
Of course, it is a pure illusion to think that the engineers go in and take the coal just where they like. They have to prospect, to verify that there is coal. Only one site is worked out of every three prospected. They have to consult the local

authority, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works, and all these different authorities must agree.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Do they consult the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Certainly.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman did not say so.

Mr. Noel-Baker: They do consult him. I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for reminding me. If the societies, the C.P.R.E. the women's institutes, and others, want to be consulted, they are always heard. There is every guarantee that, if opencast working is allowed, it is because the true national interest so demands.
I conclude by saying that the Government look forward to the day when opencast working can be abandoned. But that day is not yet. Today it is making a great contribution to our recovery. It does so at a low cost in manpower; it is paying its way; and the loss in food production and natural beauty is temporary and relatively low. Year by year, we reduce the annoyance and the hardship which it involves. We shall welcome every suggestion, from whatever quarter, that can be made to make the position better. We shall examine with sympathy and understanding every case of hardship which the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken or any other hon. Member, can bring to our attention. But we know that when this Debate ends today, all parties will agree that for the present the work must continue.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: During the first part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I thought that the repentance stool might at any time collapse under him. He appeared in sackcloth covered with opencast ashes. His apologies were so abject that I thought he was about to resign. He has made a case against the Government couched in far sharper language than I should ever care to use. As for the financial passages of his speech, they may be described as passing all understanding. He was asked


a question about them, but it embarrassed him. Obviously, he did not know the answer, so he passed on. I asked him a question about the Treasury's vast accumulation of losses in the production of opencast coal. When the Minister says that opencast coal—

Mr. Noel-Baker: Of course, the great losses were incurred during the war, under the Coalition Government to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged. We have never suggested that we can now, on the price we charge for opencast, recoup those losses. All we say is that it was right at that time, at that loss, to take the coal.

Mr. Bracken: In answer to that curious intervention, let me say that the Minister has boasted about the large sums of money—the dollars, if you please —spent in the United States in order to bring in a lot more machinery for opencast excavations. Of course, that machinery should be subjected to a proper amortisation policy by the Minister. The Coal Board must remember that they must repay and give proper interest to the Treasury for the advances made to them. I should like to ask the Minister another question arising out of his financial statement. What are the depreciation charges on the machinery upon which the Government have spent such lavish sums? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to that question.
The Minister made an attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and, in due course, my hon. Friend will reply to him. At least, I hope that he will have the opportunity. The Minister told my hon. Friend, by way of damping down the criticisms, that the British Electricity Authority take this opencast coal. Is not Lord Citrine, like Lord Hyndley, responsible to the Minister? I should think he must take this opencast coal. The Minister would certainly give him a few painful interviews if he did not do so. I agree with what the Minister said about opencast coal being good in parts. Of course, there is some good opencast coal, just as there is some inferior deep-mined coal. Nobody denies that.
Listening to the Minister, it was only too obvious that the only defence that can be made for large-scale opencast

mining operations in peace-time is that deep-mined coal is lacking. I need not go into the reasons for this now, because the House discussed them very fully during the Debate on the National Coal Board's Report last week. I noticed that during the weekend the Lord President and Lord Hyndley reinforced some of the points which the Opposition made in that Debate. Absenteeism, contempt for quality and strikes are some of the reasons given by Ministers and the Coal Board for our failure to produce enough good deep-mined coal.
The Ministry of Fuel and Power, in a statement issued last night, stated that as a result of strikes in coal mines last week, there was an estimated loss of 127,000 tons of saleable coal, about half the weekly average of opencast production. So we must go on tearing up the countryside to provide coal lost by strikes and absenteeism. If the Minister's defence of opencast operation is that there is no other way of providing coal, or stuff called coal—and that, in effect, is what he told us today—we must count the cost of the defeatist policy. The price is heavy, but, if we must pay, let us do it with a clear understanding of what we have lost and are still losing.
The Ministry of Agriculture are continually exhorting the farmers to grow more food, and the Minister of Fuel and Power touched on that subject today. Large sums of money are being spent on publicity and on the county agricultural committees in order to stimulate the farmers to do so. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Fuel and Power are requisitioning good farm land for opencast operations. One might almost be forgiven for believing that these two Ministries serve different nations.
Here is a good example of the lack of effective co-ordination between the Ministries of Fuel and Power and Agriculture. The Minister told us today that there was the closest co-ordination between them. Well, I shall give him a good example of the lack of effective co-ordination between the two Ministries. The "Kidderminster Times" which is not owned by my hon. Friend the Member for that important division, on 30th June published the following statement:
Two official-looking letters arrived by the same post for Mr. A. Smith, of Hawkley Farm, Pensax. One was from the Ministry


of Agriculture informing him that his farm had been graded to 'A' class and thanking him for his efforts for having improved it to such an extent as to lift it from the 'C' category.
A really first-rate performance, and the Minister of Agriculture was quite right to send his congratulations.
The other was from the Ministry of Works"—
acting on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman—
informing him that boring for opencast coal mining is to he carried out any time after receipt of the letter.
[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may care nothing for the lot of the humble farmer, but we on this side do. Bitter indeed are the hardships suffered by many farmers, and particularly tenant farmers, through opencast mining operations. Their earning power is sharply reduced, and in some cases their livelihood is taken away without any compensation. The man who lived or still lives in his farmhouse while opencast operations are going on leads an almost intolerable life, almost as bad as dwelling in Southern Korea. The roar of machinery goes on day and night and blasting operations often damage his house.
A great number of farmers are now deeply apprehensive about the future, because they are haunted by the fear of requisitioning. A notice may be thrust upon them at any time. This is thoroughly bad for British agriculture, because, without confidence, farmers cannot give of their best to the nation. Furthermore, despite what the Minister said today, farmers greatly doubt the effectiveness of the Ministry's land restoration and after-treatment methods. At the present time, there is no certainty that these methods will be permanently effective; there is even some doubt whether they will be temporarily effective.
The Minister mentioned the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and, like me, he respects that splendid body which renders such unselfish service to the community. I wish he would read one of its recent reports. I shall oblige him with an extract:
Shelterless fields with concrete and wire fences are a poor substitute for mature trees and young plantations, well-grown hedges and stone walls.

That is the judgment of an independent authority. I know that the Minister is a many-sided man. Does he think, from his obviously brief tenure of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, that he can replace oaks 300 or 400 years old? Does he suggest that he can rebuild ancient but stout walls as quickly as his excavators can destroy them? Of course, he will not make such a claim, because he realises the tremendous damage done by opencast mining operations.
Now let me say a few words about beautiful scenery or ancient parks devastated by opencast operations. I know that there are a number of thoughtless people and natural vandals who say that the preservation of the beauty of Britain is only of secondary importance by comparison with the nation's need to earn a living. All these utilitarian arguments can be countered by a solid material reason for not damaging our inheritance of beauty. Knowing that the Minister does care a little for the countryside, I was shocked that, in a passage of his speech today, he was using this material argument against the preservation of the countryside.
However, I will produce a really good, solid, material argument against opencast mining operation. Tourists visiting Britain spent at least £60 million here last year. If the authority of the Lord President goes unquestioned, £100 million may be spent here next year. Now that is a much greater price than we can ever hope to get from the sale of opencast coal, even if it were produced in three times the quantity now recorded by the Minister.
If we continue to allow places of great beauty such as Wentworth Woodhouse, mentioned by the Minister in his speech, to be desecrated by opencast operations, our tourist traffic is likely to diminish. It is sheer financial folly to damage one of Britain's best assets, which is tourism, because of absenteeism and failure. I must explain this word "tourism." It is one of the new words I picked up from the vocabulary of the Socialist Ministry. What it means is earnings of the tourist industry. Why cast away the prospect of increasing those earnings because of the strange operations of the opencast excavators under the Minister's authority?
Why is it necessary to go on with opencast mining operations? We have been


given the reason by Lord Hyndley. It is because of absenteeism and the failure to work all out the costly machinery that has been introduced into the pits in order to increase production. On material grounds, there is everything to be said against mutilating a part of England's loveliness by opencast operations. There are other and greater objections. We have, indeed, been careless of our heritage of beauty. Many hundreds of beautiful Elizabethan, William and Mary, Georgian and Queen Anne houses and churches have been defaced or pulled down during the last century, and much beautiful scenery has been destroyed. No other country in the world would have committed this vandalism.

Mr. Monslow: Private enterprise.

Mr. Bracken: I hope that the hon. Member is not taking the Minister as an apostle of private enterprise.
As I say, we have lost a great deal during the last 100 years, and the malice of the enemy during the last war added to our loss of things of beauty. Surely, the time has come to put an end to this vandalism. "This other Eden, this blessed spot" has lost much of its beauty since Shakespeare's day.

Sir Richard Acland: Has not that destruction been done by private enterprise up to now?

Mr. Bracken: In fact, that is not the case. I am very sorry to say that among the worst vandals in Britain are the city fathers, whether Socialist or Tory, and the hon. Baronet really should not bite the hand that fed him because he is a prosperous example of private enterprise and land at its best.
The Government announced that opencast mining operations would end in 1947. That was a promise given by the Government. Later on, they abandoned this pledge and said it would end in 1949. We are now told that it will end in 1951.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): Would the right hon. Gentleman give his authority for the statements he has just made?

Mr. Bracken: I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read his Departmental papers.

Mr. Robens: I do read them. The right hon. Gentleman should read his.

Mr. Bracken: There are rumours that opencast operations will continue until the end of 1952—

Mr. Robens: 1953.

Mr. Bracken: —or 1953. Does the Minister confirm those rumours.

Mr. Robens: No, I said there was a rumour.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman is obviously in touch with his Department on social occasions. If opencast operations are to continue into 1952, what a prospect for British agriculture and the amenities of the countryside. Listening to the Minister today, one is almost sorry for him. He confesses his helplessness to prevent this damage caused by opencast operations. Well, there is one thing he can do. Before instructions to requisition more land for opencast mining operations are issued to farmers, a public inquiry should be held in respect of each site at which all who raised objections could have their say. Will the Minister agree to this, and will he agree that opencast operations should not take place within a quarter of a mile of the site of dwelling-houses? Will the Minister give that pledge?

Mr. Robens: Mr. Robens indicated dissent.

Mr. Bracken: The public want to know where they are.

Mr. Henry White: Would the right hon. Gentleman be logical in his argument—as he is so eager to prevent the spoliation of the beauty spots of the countryside—and close down Rufford and Thorsby pits where the pit tips have already spoiled parts of Sherwood Forest, the surrounds of the "Major Oak," and the beauty of the home of Robin Hood and parts of Nottinghamshire?

Mr. Bracken: Robin Hood was an admirable man by comparison with the right hon. Gentleman. At any rate, he gave back something that he took to the poor, whereas the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues merely batten upon


them. If the Minister could agree to the two modest suggestions I have put to him, I can assure him that these concessions would be of great value. We heard from the Minister a rather long digression about the close contact he has with other Ministries who have a direct or indirect interest in opencast mining operations. I quoted the case of agriculture, and I need not say any more about that.
Would the Minister tell us something about his relationships with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, that costly Cinderella? Its first duty, we were told, was to help to preserve things of beauty against the rippers employed by the right hon. Gentleman. At the present time, they are spending great sums on the creation of national parks, while lovely parks and tracts of fine country are being scarred by the Ministry of Fuel and Power.
The Minister of Works has also undischarged responsibilities for preserving fine buildings and amenities, and yet he is actually the instrument used by the Minister of Fuel and Power for requisitioning the land needed for opencast mining operations. While these Ministries sulk in squalid isolation, grievous harm is being done to this dear land of ours.

Mr. Logan: Have you no recollection of what we took over from your propertied classes in regard to the mining areas of this country?

Mr. Bracken: I am very surprised that the hon. Member should use such language to Major Milner. I do not think that Major Milner, on his own behalf or on behalf of anybody else, has ever done anything such as hon. Gentleman has suggested.
There is a useful service that the right hon. Gentleman can render during his term of office. Let him do everything in his power to see that opencast operations are ended as soon as possible.

Mr. Percy Wells: Would the right hon. Gentleman make that request also in regard to the extraction of chalk for the manufacture of cement?

Mr. Bracken: It would be out of order if I were to do so. I have a much greater respect for the Chair than has the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shurmer: What about the quarrying in the Malvern Hills?

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman from Birmingham is a perpetual nuisance. He should try to catch the Chairman's eye and make his speech later on. [An HON. MEMBER: "I wish you would."] I am quite embarrassed by this desire of the Opposition that should make another speech, but I am not a prima donna, and I am not coming back to the halls until another occasion.
If the Minister will put an end to opencast mining operations, everybody in this country will recognise that there was some thought in the Prime Minister's mind when he sent him to his present office. I think, too, that the Minister is really in agreement with this side of the Committee in our view that most of the opencast mining operations are a great evil. I agree that in certain sections of the country, particularly in Lanarkshire, there is quite a good case to be made for opencast mining operations, because it does not destroy agricultural land or the beauty of the countryside. Most of these opencast mining operations, however, are a great evil. They are another example of the harm done to Britain abroad and at home, by her failure to produce deep-mined coal: and so I hope the Minister will make his term of office memorable by abolishing most opencast mining operations before 1951.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Williams: There have been occasions when the wit and the charm of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) have captivated the Committee: but one of the consequences of his having occasionally achieved this, is to put him in the position that he has certain standards up 10 which he should make a serious attempt to rise. I believe that I am right in saying that, certainly on this side of the Committee, and probably on the other side, there is a feeling that he did not rise to the occasion today.
I have a great deal of sympathy with him on this occasion. It seems to me that he would have felt much happier had he been complimenting and congratulating the Government on their general policy


but venturing a few criticisms as to particular parts of the country here and there, rather than making a laboured attempt to castigate them when he knew full well that a great contribution had been made to our national economy by the very methods of opencast mining which he attempted so feebly to criticise.
In the course of his remarks he was obliged to resort to the most far-fetched arguments. The first line that should be drawn relates to the approach we should make to this subject—whether we should say this is a vital and important national problem, or whether we should say this is a grand and glorious opportunity for us to exploit the frustrations and bad temper which people very naturally feel in our constituencies when they find they are subject to the difficulties that arise from opencast coal mining. The right hon. Gentleman has chosen the second when he could have done much better by choosing the first. I sincerely hope that before he makes another speech on opencast mining he will come to me in the Library or some other place, and I will give him a few hints on how to make it.

Mr. Bracken: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his invitation. Is he speaking in his capacity as legal adviser to the National Union of Mineworkers? If he is, he is a very biased party, and he ought to have declared his interest at the beginning of his speech.

Mr. Williams: To which I would reply that the right hon. Gentleman clearly indicates the weakness of his case by attempting to abuse the attorney on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a certain line to make it appear as if the extent to which opencast mining takes place in this country is such that there are people in New York and elsewhere who say, "We would like to go to England but we will not go because of the opencast coal mining. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch has told us that, if we go there, it will be like going to Southern Korea. Blasting operations and so on are done so inconsiderately by the Ministry that there is no regard for amenities and convenience at all. The United Kingdom is a place to avoid, on the authority of that right hon. Gentleman." If he thinks he is helping this country nationally by

that sort of argument, I beg him to think again.
I would remind him that very much stronger arguments in regard to tourism could be made today by hon. Members from mining constituencies. They would refer not to temporary measures to which we have to resort to help our national economy along, but to the unplanned chaos, the anarchy of the pre-war years and the generations of neglect. If he wants to see parts of the country where there is no beauty at all, but where there was once beauty, where amenities have been destroyed and trampled underfoot, I shall be delighted to take him there and add to his political education in these matters. Quite obviously, he very sadly needs somebody to take him by the hand, if he thinks that vandalism is something which has occurred since opencast mining came into operation in 1942.

Mr. Keeling: Does the hon. Member seriously suggest that what is being done now to destroy the countryside, combined with what was done in the past, is not sending tourists to the Continent instead of to this country?

Mr. Williams: The answer to that is quite clearly that there are probably more people wanting to come to the United Kingdom today, to see its places of beauty and to study its way of life, than ever before, and that there are far more people who want to come here to stay permanently than ever before. That is surely the answer. If the hon. Member has a number of cases where he knows people have said, "We will not go to the United Kingdom to study the conditions there and try to enjoy ourselves, because there is opencast mining there," then, if he catches your eye, Major Milner, perhaps he will cite those cases.
In the absence of evidence from him, and from the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, who tried to make this point and also quoted no instance at all, we can only assume that these are assertions that cannot be supported, are a sort of vague feeling that if one were going to a particular resort, and there is no opencast mining there now, one would be inclined to pick another resort if opencast mining started. That may be so, but there is no evidence at all. The hon. Member


for Twickenham and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch know this very well.
If it is necessary for them to resort to this sort of argument, surely the Committee will say, "Why is it necessary, since opencast mining, of all subjects, is the one on which it is the easiest to attack the Government, because nobody likes opencast mining as such?" Everybody recognises that it is a damnably unpleasant and dirty business, and so is deep mining, too. Nobody likes it. It is not a vote-catching policy to proceed with opencast mining, and His Majesty's Government know that as well as anybody else. They have to stand up to attacks, not only from the opposite side of the Committee but from this side as well, from hon. Members who are under pressure from their constituents.
Surely, the right attitude to take as responsible legislators is this: when one meets with that sort of difficulty one should ask what is the national approach. What answer can be made? Is this just a case of a Ministry which cares nothing for the amenities of the countryside—a group of materialists concerned only with tearing coal out of the earth, regardless of the consequences? The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not so. He knows that if he were in the place of my right hon. Friend at the moment, which God forbid, while we are in power, he would be obliged to carry on opencast mining, for reasons which I will give in a moment.

Mr. Bracken: God forbid that I should be in the situation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in the present Government.

Mr. Logan: Or in any other.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the only reason for these opencast mining operations is that members of the union to which he belonged will not use machinery in the pits and will not give up striking and absenteeism.

Mr. Williams: Great as were the depths to which the right hon. Gentleman sank in attempting to put his case, he has now sunk to greater depths, because he knows that that is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Bracken: Lord Hyndley said so.

Mr. Williams: In reply to that point, I would say that when it suits the right hon. Gentleman he refers to Lord Hyndley and his colleagues, who are doing such a magnificent job, as "those old gentlemen at Hobart House," and on other occasions, when he thinks it suits his case, he quotes them as authorities upon a particular point. He thereby discredits himself, and we on this side of the Committee do not pay the slightest attention to what he has said on this point.

Mr. Murray: Or on any other point.

Mr. Williams: Let us see why it is necessary to proceed with opencast mining. I have said it is wrong to concentrate on the constituency side and exploit the grievances and frustrations of constituents, and make that the basis of an attack upon the Government. But there is one point I should like to make from the constituency standpoint, and it is that, like many others, I have had to make representations to the Ministry, and I want to put it on record that the Ministry have always done a magnificent job considerately and sympathetically, even when it was most difficult to deal with the points submitted to them.
Let us leave the constituency aspect and consider the matter from the standpoint of the nation. I take it that every hon. Member will agree that our future depends upon increased production of coal.

Mr. Bracken: Hear, hear.

Mr. Williams: To argue about the causes is, for the purposes of this point, an irrelevancy. We are agreed then that our future depends upon the maximum production of coal. Between 1942 and February, 1950, we have had 67,600,000-odd tons of coal from this source. So that what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, if he says that there should not be opencast production, is that he wants the standard of living of people in this country reduced to that extent; or, if not to that extent, at any rate obviously reduced, unless he or some of his supporters can show an alternative source from which the coal which would be lost if we did not have opencast working, could be provided.
It is no good hon. Members opposite talking about absenteeism, strikes and all the rest of it. If they were in power today there would be absenteeism and strikes at


such a rate that it would horrify the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Let us not get excited about that. Hon. Members opposite have made the clearest pronouncements in the country that they will have little talks with the trade unions about the most highly controversial matters. It is they who have said it. It is they who have declared war, and not the trade unions. I say that their irresponsibility would lead, as it led before, to industrial strife which would be unavoidable. But suppose we did not have industrial strife. Is it suggested by hon. Members opposite that it is possible to run any industry without any absenteeism at all? That is not a defence of absenteeism, but I am saying that we must accept certain things as facts.
It is a fact that there is a shortage of coal for our requirements, and upon that point we all agree. Never mind what the reasons are; there is that shortage. Consequently, every ton of coal we can produce by any means is absolutely essential. Let us look at some important figures and consider the relationships between them. I refer to the figures in relation to our export trade and the figures in relation to opencast coal. I do not suggest for one moment that because we have got opencast coal it is being sold abroad. That is not the point. It supplements other sources of supply and makes available for export supplies which otherwise would not be available.
I will take the figures from 1945; and let me assure the Committee that I make no implied criticism as far as the predecessors of this Government are concerned. I am merely giving these as the figures, taking 1945 as the starting point: 8.12 million tons from opencast mining, 6.4 million tons exports and bunkers; 1946, 8.83 million tons opencast, 9.2 million tons exports and bunkers; 1947, 10.25 million tons opencast, 5.4 million tons exports and bunkers; 1948, 11.75 million tons opencast, 15.9 million tons exports and bunkers; 1949 12.44 million tons opencast, 19 million tons exports and bunkers.
I am going to put to the Parliamentary Secretary as grave a question as I can. Never mind who is to blame or who is to be praised for the present position. If, in fact, we accepted the point of view put

by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, and stopped opencast mining at the present time, obviously we would lose these export markets but, what is worse—and this the gravest point of all—this country would be obliged to import coal, and that would have a shattering effect upon our economy.
Because I consider that the matter is as serious as that, I beg hon. Members opposite to take an entirely different line, however hard they may criticise the Government. I say to them: for Heaven's sake approach this desperately difficult and grave matter from the national standpoint instead of trying to make cheap debating points at the expense of other speakers, and thinking that that answers the question. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will indicate whether I am too pessimistic in assuming that if the policy of opencast mining were not continued this country would be perilously near having to import coal. For this nation to be obliged to do that would be a tragedy.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: In spite of the Minister's attempts to excuse the damage done and in spite of the plea by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) that this housemaid's baby was only a little one, I assert that opencast working is the most devastating process which our countryside has ever suffered unnecessarily.
The Minister's contrast in cash values is fallacious. We were told the other day—I do not think the Minister mentioned it today—that 72 million tons of coal had been produced by opencast workings since 1942. That represents 11 weeks' consumption. In obtaining that 72 million tons, the Minister told us on 1st May that 51,000 acres of agricultural land had been taken. Today, however, the Minister said that only 20,000 acres had been excavated. I cannot reconcile that figure with his statement of 1st May that 28,000 acres had been restored. If only 20,000 acres have been excavated, how can 28,000 be restored?

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: One has to restore a good deal of land which has not been excavated. It is damaged a little by the workings around, but the subsoil is not removed. The top soil and subsoil have


been removed from only 20,000 acres. The present figures are-14,000 acres actually back in the hands of the farmers and 14,000 acres being restored.

Mr. Keeling: I am glad to hear that, but I should like to know how much of the remainder of the 51,000 acres requisitioned will be excavated?

Mr. Noel-Baker: None of that at all.

Mr. Keeling: I am very glad to hear that. Continuing my argument, I say that the value of whether it be 51,000 acres or 28,000 acres or 20,000 acres, which have been damaged; the value of that acreage of fertile land is simply incalculable, not only because of the food-producing value but also because of the amenities, which cannot be priced. The Minister himself. mentioned Wentworth Woodhouse and I suggest that the desolation around Wentworth Woodhouse, which was a park open to the public—one of the lungs in that industrial area—cannot be remedied for at least 100 years or maybe fur 200 years.
We were told on 1st May that another 30,000 acres, in addition to the 51,000 acres, may be requisitioned. They include at least four areas of exceptionally beautiful country—in South Shropshire; at Staunton Harold in Leicestershire, where the charming setting of that lovely house may share the fate of Wentworth Woodhouse; at Hazelhurst Farm in the Sheffield Green Belt; and in West Worcestershire.

Mr. Robens: Is the hon. Member mentioned Wentworth Woodhouse. Has he seen Wentworth Woodhouse since it was restored and, if he has, would he give a candid opinion of what it appears to be now?

Mr. Keeling: I was there last year and I cannot understand how the Parliamentary Secretary can possibly suggest that all the trees which were cut down a few years ago have grown up again.

Mr. Robens: Is the hon. Member not aware that a good many of the trees which were cut down had already reached maturity and that new plantings are taking place.

Mr. Keeling: Yes, I know, but I do not think anyone would seriously suggest that the park of Wentworth Woodhouse can possibly be restored for a great many

years. Finally, there is West Worcestershire, where the Abberley Hills, with their splendid views of Shropshire and the Welsh mountains, are also threatened.
The Minister admitted that this was all very disfiguring but only. he said, for a certain time. I contend that the disfigurement goes on for a very uncertain time; I say that it goes on indefinitely. That is our complaint. I cannot understand how the Minister can talk about "a certain time'' when. not very long ago, a committee was set up to investigate the restoration of land and it was stated that it would take three years for them to report. How can it be necessary to set up a committee which will not report for three years if there is no doubt that the land can be restored?
I quote from a statement by the County Agricultural Adviser in Derbyshire who said that
in his experience, after treatment by opencast working, land had never been successfully restored and in no case could restored land be usefully ploughed.
He described "restored" land as an impervious subsoil compacted by the heaviest of machinery upon which five or so inches of top soil was returned, forming a crust which might grow some grass but through which cows might drive their hooves and which certainly could not be ploughed. There are 17 counties already involved.

Mr. Robens: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the view which he has now quoted? If so, would he be prepared to come with me to see land which has been restored, which has been ploughed many times and which is growing crops?

Mr. Keeling: I do not pretend to be a farmer, but I am quoting from a man who is an expert. Certainly I shall be very glad to go with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House in which part of the country are these sections of land about which he is complaining on the authority of his informant?

Mr. Keeling: The statement of the Derbyshire officer was that in his experience this was not possible, and I presume he was referring to Derbyshire or to the surrounding country, although I do not know.

Mr. Thomas: If this is brought forward as evidence as a result of opencast mining, I think the Committee are entitled to know where these spots are situated about which these complaints are made so that investigations may be made by the Minister.

Mr. Keeling: It is not specified in the statement and I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member any further information. As I said, already 17 counties are involved and in some of them the damage has already been done, but the storms of protest about the future are unabated in Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Flintshire, the West Riding, Northumberland, South Shropshire and West Worcestershire. Those are local interests, but we have also had many protests from national societies such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the National Federation of Women's Institutes, to which the Minister referred.
I thought my right hon. Friend was too optimistic about how long this will continue, because on 1st May we were told that it would go on for at least four more years. The Minister sought to pooh-pooh the loss to agriculture. I say that the long-term value of the crops, including the timber, is of far greater value than the once-for-all benefit of coal mined in this way, to the ruin, or partial ruin, of good agricultural land.
My right hon. Friend gave one material reason—the loss of tourism—why this should not continue. I will give another material reason. Why should this opencast working go on in peace? One suspects that it is to make up for some of the £14 million loss which was incurred before this year, by keeping the expensive machinery employed. But these coal resources form a strategic reserve to be exploited for the very purpose for which they were exploited during the war. I suggest that this very valuable strategic reserve should not be dissipated in peace, any more than our reserve taxable capacity should be dissipated in peace.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. David Griffiths: should have been deeply delighted at last to hear a case why the Minister should dissociate himself from and terminate opencast coal mining, but I have not heard a case made yet either

by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) or by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling)—although I have been interested to hear the instances they have mentioned, and amused to hear their arguments. They were talking about the question of opencast coal mining interfering with the tourist trade. That is an extreme absurdity, because tourists do not visit mining areas where opencast coal is won. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I am not giving way. I am having only five minutes, because I shall give other hon. Members an opportunity to take part in this Debate.
Wentworth Woodhouse happens to be in my division, and I know it better than hon. Gentlemen opposite. I was born there. Hon. Members opposite are always making party capital out of it, but hon. Members opposite are not relatives of the distinguished people who live at Wentworth Woodhouse. I say that with every degree of surety. Their motive in talking about Wentworth Woodhouse is a purely political motive. The Countess herself, who is still in residence there, and any relatives who have been approached, have publicly stated that they have no objection whatsoever to the excavation of opencast coal if it is for the benefit of the nation.
I submit to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch and to the hon. Member for Twickenham and to their colleagues that this coal is necessary for the welfare and economic prosperity of the nation, and that it is cowardice on their part to talk as they do about Wentworth Woodhouse in face of the facts of the situation. I submit, moreover, that we on this side of the Committee are as anxious as they that the country shall not be spoiled, and that when the opencast work is finished the land affected shall be restored afterwards at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Bracken: I think the hon. Gentleman told us he was on very good terms with Countess Fitzwilliam. What he should have told us was that the President of the Yorkshire Miners' Federation strongly protested about the


disfigurement of Wentworth Woodhouse. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the owners of this house have no objection to having their property cut to pieces through this opencast work?

Mr. Griffiths: I did not say at all that I was in close touch with the Countess, but I happen to be better acquainted with the Yorkshire Miners' Federation than hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Keeling: Is it true or not?

Mr. Griffiths: I know what the President's attitude was. It was the wrong attitude. He said en behalf—as he said—of the Yorkshire miners that he was going to prevent the work from being done if he could. He did not succeed, and what he said was not in keeping with what the Countess and her relatives said, though it may have been with what the political friends of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite wanted. There are there eight feet of the finest coal in this land, with only 20 feet of overburden—coal which can be won more economically than coal in any other field in this country.

Mr. Keeling: If it is true that the President of the Yorkshire branch of the National Union of Mineworkers said that, what becomes of the hon. Gentleman's statement that this is a political agitation from this side of the Committee?

Mr. Griffiths: He was speaking on his own initiative, and was not in keeping with some of his colleagues as officials of the Yorkshire Miners Federation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Aha."] Aha, indeed; but I think it can be safely said that if we want evidence of that, it is amply proved by hon. Members opposite. We are always sure of one thing. They always voted together in the Lobby though they may disagree, in which case each one says he is speaking for himself and not for his party.
What I submit finally is this. All the land has been restored, and not only at Wentworth Woodhouse. I have more knowledge of this case than any hon. Member opposite. I want to be fair about this. I was born in that area, and I did not just see it when I was passing by in a train like the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch. I give one point to the hon. Member for

Twickenham. He said it is impossible to replace trees. I agree. However, I want to say quite seriously that the land that has been restored is under better cultivation, and a lot of it will be better pasture land than it has ever been before. While I recognise the necessity, for the salvation of this nation, of winning this opencast coal, and that the work must continue, I do urge my right hon. Friend to finish it, and to restore the land afterwards, at the earliest possible moment.

5.5 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: I was enchanted at the thought of the Parliamentary Secretary wandering on Newcastle Town Moor looking at the cows cropping the grass in that part of the moor which has been subjected to opencast coal mining. May I say with all sincerity that I belong up there, and that I have wandered on the Town Moor ever since the days of my childhood. The grass is newly growing on that moor, but I should like to suggest that, perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary would care to wander with me in his old haunts—which are, I am glad to say, now in my constituency—and see the devastation and hear of the annoyance which have been caused to that part of the world.
I want to say this, in all fairness: I think it is tremendously important that we should try to approach this problem from the national and not from a political point of view. I think we all agree that opencast coal mining is a tremendous scourge which a great many parts of the country have had to bear. However, I think it ought to be approached really from the point of view of whether, now that the war is over, it is essential to carry on with it, and, indeed to open up new areas for the work.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his opening speech, based his case on the fact that it was essential in the national interest that we should have this opencast coal for our domestic needs and export requirements. I want to point out that in the days before the war deep mined coal was providing a greater tonnage than the total amount raised today both by deep mining and opencast coal mining. In fact, before the war the production of deep mined coal was limited only by the markets we could find in which to sell the coal. I want to have put on record. in this Debate, the coal tonnages that


were produced in the years from 1935 to 1939. In 1935 we raised 222 million tons of deep mined coal; in 1936, 228 million tons; in 1937, 240 million tons; in 1938, 227 million tons; and in 1939, 231 million tons.

Mr. Fernyhough: Carry on.

Miss Ward: The right hon. Gentleman's argument would be stronger if he could explain to the Committee why we are not getting that amount of deep mined coal today.

Mr. Pryde: Because we have not the men.

Miss Ward: The second point I want to make is this. The right hon. Gentleman told us we are now making a profit on opencast coal mining, and I am very glad indeed to hear so. Of course, it is perfectly true that when we embark on a new scheme the initial expenses are very much higher than are the expenses when we have got into an even flow of production, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has every right to be glad and proud that we have managed, apparently, to raise the coal at a profit rather than at a loss.
It would be reassuring to everybody if the Minister could issue a White Paper setting out all the different areas which have been opened up, showing which areas produce good opencast coal and which areas produce bad opencast coal. My recollection is—I am speaking now without having looked the matter up, as I had no idea the Parliamentary Secretary intended to refer to the Newcastle Town Moor—that the coal from the Newcastle Town Moor was not of such good quality as that produced in other areas. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could give us a comparison of the calorific values of opencast coal and deep-mined coal over a general range.
In addition, I should like to see set out in detail comparisons of the costs and qualities of coal from the different sites which have been opened up. That would be very valuable, because I know from what I have heard from those who are expert in this matter that there is a very wide variation, and I am bound to say that I think some mistakes have been made in the sites which have been opened up for opencast coal working.
My next point is in connection with the controversy over agricultural land. I have noticed, in all the exchanges of views that have gone on between hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, that nobody has referred to the fact that valuable house building land has also been sterilised by opencast coal mining operations. The nearer one gets to urban, or indeed to industrial areas—and this applies to my own constituency—the nearer one gets to centres of population, the greater the danger of the sterilisation of land for house building. It must be very obvious to everybody that I am not an expert in this, but I have tried to learn from the experts, and I am told by those who have the responsibility of selecting land for house building that they would not care to embark on a building programme on land which has been subjected to opencast coal mining, and that the land will have to settle for a very long period before any local authority will embark on a house building programme there.
I should very much like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about that, because very many areas that I know are very short of suitable land for house building. If the Ministry of Fuel and Power will co-ordinate with the Ministry of Health, they may find that some of the reasons why local authorities in the North, which I know very well, have not been able to take up their full allocation of houses are due to the fact that no suitable land has been available. I am not saying that that is necessarily land which has been subjected to opencast coal mining, but there is a very great deal in this point and, I should like it to be dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies to the Debate.
I think that the agricultural side has been extremely well covered, but I noticed the other day, at Question time, when the Minister was challenged on the matter of agriculture by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), who asked whether the Minister was aware that opencast coal mining was wrecking agriculture at the present time, and whether he did not want food as well as coal, the right hon. Gentleman replied:
No, Sir; I am not aware of anything of the kind. If the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to be here on Wednesday


I hope we may discuss the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 1832.]
The right hon. Gentleman has now said that opencast mining is interfering with agriculture, though he has made the point that it is only temporarily; he has, in fact, confirmed exactly what my hon. and gallant Friend said in his supplementary question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: To mine any mineral resources of the country—deep-mined coal, gravel, sand or clay, whatever it may be—must interfere with agriculture to some extent. What I said was that we were not devastating agriculture. Indeed, we are interfering with it much less than in the case of other things—sand, gravel, and so on—for which a much larger acreage has been desecrated for all time.

Miss Ward: I hesitate to keep on handing out invitations to the right hon. Gentleman, though no doubt he will probably be very willing to accept them, but I extend to him another invitation. If, when he comes up to my division, to take part in this other dispute, he will allow me to take him a little further out, I can show him farmers living in very tiny areas with one or two fields surrounding their homesteads, and the rest of their farmland under opencast coal mining.
Let me just go one step further—because remember, I come from the centre of a mining community; I am not a newcomer to mining. In the old days deep-mined coal operations did not interfere with agricultural land; agriculture went on on top of the pits, and the only problem was that of subsidence. Farmers could continue to grow crops on top of land under which deep-mined coal operations were going on.
The difference, of course, between deep-mine coal operations and opencast coal mining is that deep-mine coal operations do not interfere with the growing of crops whereas opencast coal mining does; valuable agricultural land, fields which were growing crops, is cut up in order to carry out these operations. I think that the right hon. Gentleman might, if I may say so with very great respect, be a little more knowledgeable on the subject before he comes down to the Committee to discuss it in the way he has.
My final point is this: I want a categorical assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that people whose houses have

been damaged, whether severely or slightly, by the operation of opencast coal-mining will not be subjected to the same treatment as those who suffered war damage. In identical manner it may be some considerable time before the damage makes itself felt in those areas which are surrounded by opencast coal-mining, and where blasting operations have taken place. I know the right hon. Gentleman has told us—and I accept his word—that the damage is covered under a Defence Regulation, but I want an assurance that we shall not be told that because people have not put in an application at a specific time, they will be debarred from claiming what is their legitimate right and due. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would deal with that.
That is all I have to say on this matter today. I think the right hon. Gentleman would get greater sympathy from those of us who are really interested in the export trade and in the national situation if he could relate this whole question of the drop in production of deep-mined coal a little more closely to the need for the emphasis on opencast coal-mining.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I wish to make reference to one or two remarks that have fallen from the lips of hon. Members opposite before I proceed to make one or two suggestions to the Ministry of Fuel and Power on the question of opencast coal-mining. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), who always entertains us when he is speaking upon mining subjects, has accused the Minister or his Department of vandalism on the countryside. So have I. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) made reference to opencast mining in these words, "Opencast mining has the most devastating effect on our countryside."
I have been thinking, while I have been sitting here, what the position was in South-West Lancashire under private enterprise, when they filled the countryside with pit heaps and flashes of water. They are still there. I took the trouble a few months ago to try to find out the acreage under pit heaps and the acreage under water in an urban district in my area, and I discovered to my amazement, as did the surveyor and the engineer,


that there were 4½ acres per head of the population under pit heaps and under water in that district. They remain to this day. Now the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch and the hon. Member for Twickenham come along and accuse the Minister of Fuel and Power and the opencast mining branch of vandalism and devastating the countryside.
I would point out that the opencast mining branch, with all its faults and failings, will at least, when the opportunity present itself, make it possible for the land to be restored again to its original state. Therefore, there is a vast difference between the approach to this question by the Minister of Fuel and Power and the opencast mining branch and the approach that was made by private enterprise in the years gone by. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) was trying to make a comparison between the output of deep-mined coal 1938 and 1939 and the years preceding, but she failed to tell the House of the manpower which produced the output which she quoted. There is a vast difference between the manpower employed today in the pits in the production of coal and what it was in 1936, 1937 and 1938.

Miss Ward: I only want to say that there is also a great difference in the machinery underground.

Mr. Brown: I am bound to agree that there has been some improvement in the mechanisation of the mining industry over the last 25 years. I am not disputing that. As an ex-miner, I know all about that. What I am finding fault with is that the hon. Lady made a statement about the output of deep-mined coal and failed to give the House and the public at large the number of men employed at that time and the number of pits. She put a question as to the number of regions and the quality of the coal.
At the present moment there are 10 regions in which opencast operations are taking place. There are 133 sites, and I suggest that every person surrounding those sites is dissatisfied. We have a saying in Lancashire, if we do not like a thing, that "We hate it as the devil hates holy water," and we on this side of the House and the miners in par-

-ticular in the districts where opencast mining takes place hate it, and the Government hate it; but, after all, we have to be realists and if coal is essential to the industrial prosperity of this country, then coal has to be won, whether by deep-mining or by opencast methods.
I think that no truer words have been written on this subject than those on 13th May, 1950, by Mervyn Jones which appeared in the "New Statesman"—by no means a Socialist paper—and this is what he said:
This opencast coal, won at financial loss but cheaply in manpower, and, above all, without sudden death and creeping disease, stood during the critical war and post-war years between British industry and breakdown.
If it had not been for opencast coal production in the post-war period, British industry would certainly have broken down. I will tell the House why. It is obvious to all in this Chamber who take an interest in these matters that we could not produce the coal from the deep mines, not because the men were not capable of doing it, but because a large number of the mines which were in existence and in commission prior to the war had gone out of commission owing to private enterprise during the inter-war years 1918–38.
In my own county of Lancashire, we had during the inter-war years 232 mines closed down. We had a mining population of over 19,000 men and boys. We had 19 pits in full commission in the district in which I live, and today we have not a wheel turning, and our mining population has gone down to about 4,000 men and boys. I do not want to indulge in recriminations, but, in my judgment, the reason why the Government have had to resort to opencast mining is because private enterprise failed to realise the position in the post-war years.

Mr. Bracken: What about the Coal Board closing down mines?

Mr. Brown: That will take place whether it is the Coal Board or anybody else. I want to tell the right hon. Member that the mines that were closed down in the period to which I refer were closed down because they failed to make the profit which was wanted by the owners, and for no other reason. I want to tell him also, as one who had the bitter experience of being a miner thrown on to


the streets for nine months, that I could not secure a job along with 1,237 of my colleagues because the mine owners could not get the extra profits which they thought were essential to continue the mines. These things have created bitterness which will not be erased.

Mr. Bracken: Exactly the policy of the Coal Board now.

Mr. Brown: I have referred to Mervyn Jones writing in the "New Statesman." He went on to say:
Whatever the objections are to opencast mining, they cannot detract from the service it has rendered during the war and the post-war years.
We cannot detract from the service which it has rendered since its inception, which came from the Opposition. I am not finding fault. I recall that as an hon. Member of this House Mr. Braithwaite was responsible for the initiation of opencast mining to meet the needs of the nation at that time.

Mr. David Grenfell: That is simply not true.

Mr. Brown: At any rate that is the information that was submitted to me.

Mr. Grenfell: No.

Mr. Brown: We can rule that right out. Since its inception as a means of producing coal, opencast coal mining has produced for this nation since 1942, 72½ million tons up to the 8th June, 1950.
As one who has been employed in the mining industry over a long period, I shudder to think what would have been the position of industry and the domestic consumer had it not been made possible to supplement deep-mined coal with opencast coal. Industry, in my judgment, would have been in a sorry plight. I am not going to quote the figures because I have not the time at my disposal, but I want to make a plea to the Minister to approach the Treasury and ask them to be more liberal in the compensation paid to the small farmer whose livelihood is taken away as a result of opencast mining.

Mr. Bracken: We can see this Minister doing that.

Mr. Brown: The last time I spoke on this subject—I do not say that it is as a result of what I said—an improvement was made in the amount of compensation

paid. After all, the small farmer, particularly the tenant farmer, is suffering tremendously.

Mr. Bracken: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brown: I want to give one or two illustrations to show what I have in mind concerning tenant farmers. We have to remember that farmers have been striving for years to bring their land into increased productivity. Some of them have spent 30 to 50 years in doing that, and they have now reached the time when their land is at the acme of productivity. It is a tragedy when someone comes along and says that he is going to confiscate the land because the coal beneath it is required.

Mr. Bracken: Come over here.

Mr. Brown: I will just have a talk with the right hon. Gentleman and tell him one or two home truths, because he does not seem to understand the position.
Five out of the seven urban authorities in my constituency have opencast mining operations taking place in their area. Therefore, I know something about it, and so do my people. We have Orrits farm with approximately 60 acres, of which 54 acres have been taken away, leaving the farmer high and dry. Windy Arbour farm, with 160 acres, has had 70 acres taken away, leaving the farmer with a very poor margin upon which to earn a livelihood. Lower Billinge Lane farm has 61 acres, of which 51 have been requisitioned, and at Harvey House farm, with 52 acres, 46 have been requisitioned.
We have here a picture of the experience of these small farmers in districts where opencast mining is taking place. In my judgment, it is dishonest and unscrupulous, as well as being bad business, to take away land from which the farmer earns his livelihood without giving adequate compensation. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] I like the cheers from Members opposite, but they do not inspire me one bit. There was a time when we pleaded to them in vain. I am pleading for these small farmers. I am not pleading for a feather-bed, but for compensation in return for the livelihood they have lost.
I want to raise another aspect with the Minister, and I know he understands what I am referring to. I do not want


a niggardly approach to be made to people who claim compensation when their property has been damaged by blasting as a result of opencast mining operations. I have dealt with thousands of compensation cases in my lifetime, and I have had only two cases go to court. I think that none of the claims for compensation made by our people ought to go for a decision to a county court.
The position can only be satisfactory if there is a reasonable approach to the question of how much damage has been sustained by the owner of property adjoining an opencast site. I am hoping that as soon as humanly possible, the Government of the day, whether it be this Government or a Government of Members opposite, will shut down opencast mining operations. I know it cannot be done until we get the deep mines restored to a position where they can give the coal the nation needs without despoiling the countryside.

5.37 p.m.

Lord Dunglass: I find myself in agreement with almost every word that was said by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), and I hope during the short time I shall occupy the Committee to develop some of the points he has made. I do not think any of us who come from and live in districts producing coal, either deep-mined coal or coal from nearer the surface, will deny that this opencast tonnage we are at present getting is an absolute necessity. It seems to be beyond dispute that unless we have this tonnage the export trade or the consumer must go short of coal. Although this opencast coal is necessary at the present moment, it is none the less in every sense of the word a hideous necessity.
It is our objective, and I hope it is also the Minister's objective, to bring these operations to a conclusion at the earliest possible moment. It was in this connection that I thought the Minister's speech was lacking in a sense of urgency and determination. I think it was the Parliamentary Secretary who said there had been a rumour that this might go on until 1953. Perhaps, when he replies, he will be able to give us a possible date when he hopes to end this experiment.
As Members have said on both sides, there can be only one end to this experi-

ment, and that is when the production of deep-mined coal is increased. That will only be possible if the recruiting schemes of the National Coal Board are successful. I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary, however, that he will only get the young men to give a full weeks' work in the mines if he gets the Chancellor to relax the austerity conditions of the present day, and puts into the shops of the mining villages something on which the miner and his wife can spend their money, also relaxing high taxation and some of the burdens of P.A.Y.E.
I want to ask the Minister of Fuel and Power if he cannot adopt a procedure which would mitigate the hardship which is suffered at present by a good many people through this system of opencast mining. I am one. I had the arable portion of a farm ruined by opencast mining. What happened was this. On Friday the officials of the Ministry of Fuel and Power appeared on the ground and said they were going to begin operations on Monday. Our answer was decisive. We told them to get back into their cars, and that if they came back on to the land again we would take steps to see that they would not get out of their cars. We informed them that nothing was to be done until they gave us notice in writing. I do not want to make too much of that incident, because probably the practice is better now. It was a case of bad manners and was undesirable.
The hon. Member for Ince talked about hardship to the farmer, and I suggest that the Minister of Fuel and Power is not the person to assess the value of agricultural land or the desirability of operating on certain kinds of land. I am going to suggest that these operations should not be proceeded with until adequate notice has been given to three bodies—the county council, as the planning authority; the area agricultural committee, who knows the value of local agricultural land; and the owner and occupier of the land concerned. If that procedure were followed we should avoid a great deal of the hardship in the next few years which is bound to take place so long as this opencast mining proceeds. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will sympathetically consider these recommendations. While I believe that opencast coal mining is at present a necessity, let us end it as quickly as we can.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Pryde: In the time at my disposal. I should like to address myself to some of the comments which have emanated from hon. Members opposite, including the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken). There is no one in this Committee who has a higher respect for the right hon. Gentleman than I have, and I always admire him most when he is batting on a sticky wicket. Two weeks in succession the Conservative Party have thrown him into the breach. It has been a bad fortnight for the right hon. Gentleman, and if I have to criticise him, he has only himself to blame.
I come from two counties which have something to say about opencast mining and deep mining. We have records of mining of coal, both opencast and deep. which take us back seven centuries, and without exaggeration I can tell this Committee that we could go on operating opencast mining in Midlothian and Peebles for another quarter of a century at the present rate, and still we would not exhaust the reserves of those two counties. because there we have more seams than anywhere else in Britain. Some hon. Members have talked about Wentworth Woodhouse, but have they ever heard of the depredations to Dryden House. the home of General Sir Simon Lockhart. which was deliberately destroyed by deep mining, because the 20 seams which lay beneath Dryden House were deliberately extracted?
Opencast mining has been condemned from the Opposition side because it disfigures the countryside. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was bad for tourism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) said, people from abroad do not come to examine the pit-heaps or to see the miners' houses, where there are no sanitary conveniences. In the current issue of the National Coal Board's magazine. hon. Members opposite will find a very fine article entitled, "The Lovely Lothians and Lovelier Peeblesshire." We have opencast operations on a scale unprecedented in Scotland, and still we find it possible to restore the land to the same standard of cultivation as it had prior to being disturbed. Whether that will continue I am not in a position to say and nor is anyone else, but those farmers whom I have inter-

viewed have told me that the only way to counteract this business is to see to it that the ground is fed. The soil must be treated well. The Ministry of Fuel and Power, in the eastern part of Scotland, have proved conclusively to me that they can restore the soil to as good a condition as it was before opencast operations, began.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Miss Ward) said that some doubted whether we needed opencast mining at all, and she gave some figures. in support of that. In my day in the mining industry there were over 3,000 collieries at work, in which one and a quarter million men were employed, but private ownership drove the men from the mines. When the National Coal Board took over, they had only 1,500 collieries and today there are only 699,000 men employed. That is where opencast coal can assist the drive for production in this country. We are dependent upon coal, because coal is the foundation of the whole structure of British industry. King Coal is going to be king for the next 40 years at least.
For opencast mining we do not require to train the skilled men whom we require in deep mining. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, said that we are forced to do this because our people in the mines will not operate the mining machinery. I want to disabuse his mind of that. I am sorry that he is not here at the moment. In the Gorebridge district of Midlothians. we have the finest American machinery at work. It is the land of Annie S. Swan, the great novelist. There we have eight seams of the finest calorific coal, and 800 yards away deep mining is taking place at over 1,000 feet deep, with the finest British machinery that can be made in the workshops of this country. They are prepared for still more up-to-date scientific machines.
Men in that part of the world do not strike for nothing. At Polton colliery men have been known to stay out for six months, in 1919, when they had a reason. The miners of Arniston went on strike for a week because of a tyrannical foreman, and the coal company thought it better to keep the men at work than to keep the foreman. The men in that place have not been on strike since. The Opposition have no case with which to come to court.
The only point of any logic which has been raised has been that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). Every one of us representing mining constituencies has an affinity with the farming industry. We know of the struggle of the farmers, especially in the sterile parts of Scotland.

Sir William Darling: Did the hon. Member say "sterile Scotland"?

Mr. Pryde: Yes. Let me tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), that there is twice as much hill land in Scotland as in all England and Wales. We have 11 million acres of hill land and some of it is within 25 miles of Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman does not require to go to the Highlands. He might come to Peeblesshire, where he will find upland farming.

Sir W. Darling: May I ask what the upland farms of Scotland have to do with opencast mining?

Mr. Pryde: Farmers have had a grievance about opencast mining. The hon. Gentleman has already made that clear in the House by his activities. He has shown us that he is interested in opencast mining in relation to the farming industry, and he cannot deny it. Because of that, I am pointing out that in our own area, conditions in regard to opencast mining operate in such a fashion as to cause the farmer a degree of discomfort, inconvenience and loss. We say to the Minister of Fuel and Power that we think the tenant farmer has a case—not that I believe that the landowner has not a case. One noble Lord who is a Member of this Parliament, but not of this House of Commons, has large estates in Midlothian which are rich in coal. It will never be possible to operate deep mining to get that coal because the coal lies so near the surface that there can be no solid roof under which to operate. These things have to be taken into consideration.
If it is in the national interest to win coal, we must always be just in our dealings with the people whom we may be going to inconvenience. I am only adding my appeal to that of the hon. Member for Ince. Anyone who comes here from Scotland by the railway, passes

the works of the London Brick Company. Is there anywhere in Britain so much depredation done to the surface of the soil as by the London Brick Company? At one colliery in Midlothian there are greater reserves of clay than ever they had in Fletton. Lanarkshire is a living monument of the inefficiency of capitalism in the coalfield. Lanarkshire today is a desert, with millions of tons of water threatening millions of tons of coal.
Underneath Glasgow there are 33 million tons of coal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tell the Coal Board."] Beneath the City of Edinburgh it is the same. Hundreds of years ago, according to the records, coal was worked under one of the districts of Edinburgh. Would the Opposition have us operate that coal and destroy those great cities? Not that Glasgow could not do with it. I heard arguments advanced yesterday that the people of Glasgow might be allowed to keep hens in their back yards. There are some areas in that city which are not fit to keep pigs. This Committee should not criticise opencast mining so much, because the day may not be far away when we shall be glad to get the coal from places like the rich seams of Midlothian, where the coal is of the highest calorific quality in the world.

5.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Baldock: I should like to bring the attention of the Minister to opencast mining in Leicestershire and to the destruction already accomplished in our landscape. I cannot see the force of the arguments that our countryside has already been despoiled in other ages. Surely we can only make progress by avoiding our past mistakes. Many of us are prepared to admit mistakes in the past, but if we always continue to dc, what was done, there can be no improvement at all. We should learn our lesson.
In particular, I want to ask the Minister to give attention to Staunton Harold Hall with its chapel and lake. It is a house of great architectural beauty, and dates from Georgian times. With its surroundings, it is one of the pleasantest places in Leicestershire. It has been described as one of the most perfect things in the county. The whole of that house and surroundings are threatened with destruction and I put in the strongest possible


plea to the Minister for reconsideration of the position. The house and surroundings should be preserved in their entirety. It is a little ironical that this destruction is threatened so soon after the presentation of the Gowers Report. It is a rather curious method of carrying out the recommendations of the Report for the preservation of worthwhile country houses to threaten this one with destruction. Are these places to be preserved with a view to subsequent sacrifice?
I appreciate that purely aesthetic arguments are unlikely to prevail even when coupled, as they have frequently been, with the attractions of the countryside to tourists. But there is a most important agricultural aspect of the matter as well. I was visited this morning by a farmer from my constituency who recently has been on a tour through the whole of Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, to examine opencast coal mining and the iron workings of Northamptonshire. He had a number of very sorry tales to tell. He told of a man formerly with 60 acres of land and now reduced to less than 12 acres on which he has to try to eke out a living. The reports that we have been reading in the local papers were absolutely confirmed by local inspection.
Those reports have mentioned the case in which cows have to walk six miles every day from their cowsheds to the fields where they graze, because of the intersection of the farm by the abysses and chasms that have been created. Some of the animals are so lame that they cannot leave the cowsheds at all. My visitor confirmed this, having seen it with his own eyes. He has seen so-called restored land. One piece was described as full of lumps of coal and lengths of wire rope. Another piece, apparently a show piece of restored land, was described as little more than a wet bog, of weeds. These are the scenes which have resulted from opencast mining in Leicestershire.
There is land near Ashby which was some of the first ever to be worked by the opencast process. It is supposed to have been restored six or seven years ago. but there are holes in it in which two or three men can completely disappear. That was a site which this farmer witnessed with his own eyes. The grass there was hardly visible for rubbish and weeds. A farmer

with such land anywhere else in the country would have been down-graded to "C," and thrown out of his farm within 12 months by the Minister of Agriculture. The owner is known as a thoroughly good farmer, but that is the condition of the land six or seven years after so-called restoration.
My visitor also told me that the contrast with the ironstone workings in Northamptonshire was very noticeable. He said that in some cases, where the job had been done diligently, reasonably good crops were growing within two years of the restoration. Therefore, it is possible, if care is taken. to make something of this land, but it is quite clear that where opencast mining has been carried out very little care indeed is being taken in the process of restoration.
I shall not give the Committee any technical details of the difficulties of farming such land after it has been restored, because I know that the Committee will be told about that more ably later on, but I should like to ask the Minister two questions. Can we have an assurance that as long as opencast operations are carried on—we have all expressed the desire that they shall be stopped as soon as possible—restoration will be properly carried out? It is useless to say that it is being carried out properly at present. The instances which I have cited today are sufficient to show that it is thoroughly and totally unsatisfactory at the present time.

Mr. William Ross: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman read the Report of the Estimates Committee on opencast coal mining last year when evidence was taken from the National Farmers' Union to the effect that restoration being done now was very satisfactory and that the real complaint is that this was not done in the earlier years?

Lieut.-Commander Baldock: I know the position, and the National Farmers' Union are thoroughly dissatisfied with the whole opencast question. I have given first-hand evidence of the condition in which the sites are left.
My second question is: Could not the opencast mining process have been finished by now, if the money which has been spent and lost on it in the past had been invested in further mechanisation of the deep mines? Surely that would have been a better outlay of the country's


money than this process of devastation. Surely we could have finished this process of opencast mining, which is causing unbounded destruction of the countryside, if the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) whose eloquence we have heard this afternoon on the subject of the gravity of the coal position, had been putting that.across to his own miners, and if further mechanisation had been carried out. Every day opencast mining continues, it is an indictment of the Labour Party's planning of the coal industry.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Slater: The hon. and gallant Member for Harborough (Lieut.-Commander Baldock) has made a reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) and has spoken about the introduction of machinery, but hon. Members opposite are apt to forget about the number of people who drifted away from the mining industry between the two world wars, not of their own initiative but because of the circumstances.

Lieut.-Commander Baldock: I thought that we were told a little earlier that there were considerably more miners in the pits before the war than afterwards.

Mr. Slater: Yes, but I am talking particularly about 1931 and 1932 when there was a great transfer of people from the mining districts to other parts of the country. During the war, efforts were made to get those people back into the industry.
No hon. Members on this side of the House wish to see opencast mining devastating agricultural land, but I would remind the Opposition that in various parts of the country—in particular, the western side of my county—there are people seeking to extract coal underground in terrible conditions, although I believe that it could be extracted by the opencast process. I know of a farmer who is operating a 6 ft. seam of coal. If something is not done thousands of tons of coal are likely to be left in mother earth. Opencast mining is a means of obtaining such deposits of this vital commodity to aid our economic recovery and our export trade. It must be borne in mind that if opencast mining was not taking place today, we should be unable to export as much coal as we do.
There is a feature of this subject to which I take exception, and I believe that, through his Department, the Minister might be able to do something about it. I am convinced that there is often no satisfactory supervision of the restoration of these sites. We must remember that in 1949 the amount of coal supplied by the United Kingdom for export and bunkers was increased by 33 million tons. I should like hon. Members opposite to see the position from the point of view of hon. Members from the mining areas. When we talk about the devastating effects of opencast mining operations, we must not forget the devastating effects of the big pitheaps which exist in various parts of the country. We have the greatest desire to see them removed, so that the ground below can be properly cultivated.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I have listened to the Debate with great interest. I believe that as soon as deep-mined coal is sufficient for our needs, opencast coal mining should cease. Meanwhile, as a representative of one of the areas of the City of Sheffield, I must say that if we are to produce steel and the exports that we need, we must have coal. and it seems that until the deep pits produce sufficient coal, it is necessary for us to have the 13 million tons of opencast coal which we require at the moment—and it may be more if the demand for steel is to go up. I appreciate the devastation which this may mean to agricultural values and I was much interested by the argument that proper compensation must be paid to farmers who are asked to bear the brunt of this form of devastation. It is obviously right and proper that compensation should be paid, but I am impressed by the argument that 30 times the value of the produce of the land is represented by the coal underneath—

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt, that argument has been adduced by the Minister and by his propagandists but it is wholly untrue and cannot be borne out in fact.

Mr. Roberts: If it is wholly untrue, of course I am not impressed by the argument. However, the Minister has the facts and figures and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us the exact figure. Even if it is 20 times, that would still weigh in my mind. I hope


the Parliamentary Secretary will resolve this once and for all.
There are three points I want to put to the Minister on the operations of opencast mining as I understand the position. First, he adduced the argument that they were making a loss of 3d. and seemed to be complacent about it. The right hon. Gentleman should look much more carefully into the cost of administration of the way this opencast is won because, if he goes back to the period of the war when big losses were being made, he will find the price of coal was at a certain level and since that time the price has risen. We have been told over and over again, and it is correct, that a great deal of that increased price of coal, 60 per cent. or 70 per cent., has gone towards increasing the wages of the miners of the deep-mined coal. As far as opencast coal is concerned, the amount of labour in the operation is much less, and therefore the opencast coal operations have been subsidised by the rise in the price of coal over the last years. That is the fundamental reason why the losses which my hon. Friend mentioned earlier have been reduced—because the price of coal has gone up and not because the cost of operation has gone down.
I suggest seriously to the Minister that he should look carefully into the cost of administration of some of these schemes, because the evidence I have, and which I am willing to give him, is that there is extravagance of administration and that this 3d. loss could be turned into something like a 2s. or 2s. 6d. profit. That should be his objective—to produce a profit on this operation and not to be satisfied, as he appeared to be this after-non with a loss.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The loss of 3d. was last year: it is now paying its way.

Mr. Roberts: I am suggesting to the Minister that it could pay its way even more if he were to look into some of the costs of the administration of the scheme.
My second point is that there is a lot of this opencast coal which by its very nature is difficult to clean. The National Coal Board are being criticised to a large extent for some of the dirt on account of the operations of opencast mining, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Fuel and Power and not the responsi-

bility of the Coal Board. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman now make arrangements for the better cleaning of opencast coal produced on the site? I am well aware that the large machines which are erected in the fields for this purpose are not really efficient. We were told recently of the increase in the washeries, the froth floatation plants going up in these areas, and I ask the Minister to consider whether it would not be possible for some of this opencast coal to be better treated at colleries rather than in this inefficient manner on the site. Unless the Minister can get cleaner coal with the opencast coal mining, the efforts which the Coal Board are making will be nullified.
My third point is more local and relates to the position in Sheffield. We are surrounded there by opencast workings, and it appears to me that the Ministry of Fuel and Power allocate to the housewives and the domestic grates of Sheffield more opencast coal than is allocated to the rest of the population. I have no quarrel with that as such, because the answer is that the coal is near to hand and it is much easier to transfer it to the local town than to take it further away. The result in Sheffield, however, is that we are faced to a large extent with this dirty opencast coal. Would the Minister consider agreeing to the coal merchants stating when they are delivering opencast coal and, the housewife having the right to reject it, if it is bad. At the moment the coal is delivered and has to be accepted? Sheffield seems to be suffering disproportionately from a surplus of opencast coal and to be getting an extra amount of dirty coal thereby.
If the right hon. Gentleman will accept the principle I am putting forward, that this coal could be better cleaned at collieries with froth floatation plants and washeries than by large jigging machines in the fields, that would solve my problem. If, however, he says that is not possible, as it may not be, then will he see that the towns near these areas do not have to take a surfeit of dirty coal? If he will do that, I am certain that a large number of people in the area I represent will be more satisfied.
I come back to the main argument of this Debate. In view of the dangers that may well be ahead of us in the next year or more, considering the need we have for an increased production of steel and


the machinery which goes with it, and realising that coal is the foundation of all these things, until deep-mined coal can give us what we require, I regret that the necessity for opencast coal mining must continue.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I should not have intervened in this Debate were it not for the fact that my own constituency is plagued with opencast mining. I am not concerned about spoiling the amenities of the area, because deep coal mining in that part of the country has hardly left anything that is worth talking about by way of amenities.
I have risen for two purposes in particular. There have been reports in the Press recently that coal production in Europe is increasing. I am wondering therefore, whether opencast mining will come to an end in this country by virtue of that fact. If the Parliamentary Secretary could make a statement on that subject before we finish the Debate tonight, it would satisfy inquiries that have been made to some of us on this subject. With regard to the production of coal mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend—

Miss Ward: Tynemouth.

Mr. Rhys Davies: It is the same thing anyhow; it used to be Wallsend. There is a tragedy about this problem in my constituency, and hon. Members will forgive me if I say a word about it. It is strange that opencast mining should be carried on in Westhoughton when, about 20 years ago, several pits were flooded and closed for good simply because colliery companies failed to agree to work a co-operative pumping scheme. There are tens of thousands of tons of good coal left in those pits whilst we are now scratching the surface for a comparatively few tons and despoiling the land in the process.
I do not know whether that is a British characteristic, but in listening to this Debate I have wondered whether Members of all parties realise exactly what we are doing in opencast mining. It is presumed, I suppose, that the nation will never be faced with any similar economic problems in future, and that there will be no need for opencast mining. We are apparently shortsighted enough to exploit the resources of the country to such an extent

that nothing will be left for our children and their children to exist upon.
I want to raise one point with which I have already dealt by correspondence with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. In one part of my constituency, there is opencast mining in a very decent residential area as a result of which the neighbourhood is being despoiled. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] The shame, of course, is on the Government—

Mr. Bracken: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The right hon. Gentleman must not be so vociferous with his "Hear, hears." Of all the Debates initiated by the Tory Party in the House in my lifetime, this is about the most ridiculous that they have ever launched. They had nothing in particular to say; they simply talk for talking's sake, and, in the main, they agree with what the Government are doing. Some Members of the Committee have spoken about damaging agricultural land—there is not a large area of it in my constituency—and about the amenities of the neighbourhood.
The position of opencast mining in my constituency is probably unique. Three local authorities in what was once a mining area own a little valley called Borsdane Wood, through which runs a stream. Opencast mining may take place on both sides of this little valley, but it is intended, I presume, to extract coal under the valley by sinking a shaft. I am an old collier myself and everybody who has worked in coal mines will realise the point I am about to make. It is all very well for those responsible to promise that they can pack the vacuum underneath that brook and make the ground safe so that the stream will run evenly, as if nothing had happened, but I have yet to learn that even the greatest experts can do that.
There is one area in my constituency which is already suffering from a similar subsidence. The subsidence has occurred under another stream, so that when there is heavy rain a small lake appears. Can we be assured that the packing under Borsdane Wood, owned by three local authorities, will be so efficient as to prevent parts of the valley from becoming lakes in time?
When hon. Members talk glibly of the total production of coal, do they not


realise what has happened during the course of the years? During the war, if I remember rightly, the Government of the day called up 70,000 miners to fight the Germans. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) knows probably more about this than anybody else. Not many of those miners ever came back to the pits. Then, hon. Members opposite forget about the closing of pits.
I should like the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth to remember that in the constituency which I represent, every one of the 29 shafts was closed between the two wars for good, not because there was no coal or because some of the pits did not pay, but merely because every one of the colliery directors—all Conservatives, by the way—declined to co-operate in a pumping scheme to keep the pits dry. I hope that the right hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), who represents an area in which there are apparently so many collieries, will remember that point in particular.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: I think that the Opposition can take credit for finding time for this Debate in order to give an opportunity to hon. Members on this side, and on the other side of the Committee also, to express their feelings about the heavy price which is being paid for opencast coal mining. When I say "heavy price" I mean not merely in cash, but in loss of farmland and amenity and in suffering to the farming community.
The Debate has taken two very distinct lines. Most of the Members who have spoken from the other side have told us about the mining problems and the fact that we have to have the coal—of course we do; we know that. Most of the speeches from this side have been on the injury to the farming community and to farm land, although this has been mentioned also by a few Members from the other side. I am quite sure that the Committee have been especially impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who speaks with great authority in these matters, from the benches opposite, and on this side by the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Irene Ward) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harborough (Lieut.-Commander Baldock).
The cost to the farming community is a very heavy one. Our charge against the Government is not that they should stop opencast coal mining immediately and unconditionally; it is that they have been complacent in accepting it as an easy way to get the extra increment of coal that we have not been getting out of the deep mines. In what I have to say I think that I shall find some evidence that they have been complacent, and that they might well have exerted themselves earlier and more energetically and prodded the National Coal Board to do the job which it was set up to do.
In his opening speech the Minister, in seeking to justify this process, reminded us that in America large quantities of coal are got from opencast mining—of course, we know that; but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not really believe that what the Americans can do in their country, which is more than ten times as big as ours to only three times the population, we can necessarily do here.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I specifically said that the Americans regard it as a permanent feature of their industry. We regard it as a temporary expedient to get us through a grave national crisis.

Mr. Nugent: I am much obliged to the Minister for emphasising that point, because I had been left with the unhappy impression that perhaps he felt we might make it a permanent feature here, too.
I should like to emphasise the point which was dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harborough about land which has been despoiled in different ways by mineral workings of various kinds. For heaven's sake, do not let us in this small island make spoliation in the past a justification for spoliation in the future. Now that we are beginning to realise how precious are our national assets, I hope that past spoliation will be regarded as a reason for a great deal more care being taken of them in future.
I must say a word or two about the attack by the Minister on my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I was sorry that my hon. Friend did not have the opportunity to reply; I am sure that he would have done so with his customary force. The point I wish to make is this: in the expressions


of opinion which my hon. Friend has made in the House, with his characteristic force and strength, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that he is expressing the very great strength of opinion of the farming community. They feel tremendously strongly on this matter.
I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman read the report of the annual general meeting of the National Farmers' Union last January. If he did, he will surely have been impressed by the fact that this opencast coal mining has deeply disturbed the feelings of the farmers throughout the country. It has done so more than anything I have known for several years. The fact that comparatively few counties have been affected —my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) said there were 17—does not alter the fact that the general body of farmers sympathised with their colleagues in the counties which are affected and that they feel disturbed about that. We have been given the figures, which have become rather confusing, as to how much land is at present under opencast. We are given the impression that between 50,000 and 60,000 acres are requisitioned and given the unhappy feeling that another 5,000, 10,000, or 15,000 acres may become requisitioned in the next year or two.
I hope we shall not imagine that the effect is limited to the acreage requisitioned, and only to the farmer on it. It spreads to all the farmers in the neighbourhood and to those who feel they may be on seams of coal and be the next unfortunate victims to have their farms torn up. The result, in the aggregate, is that a very large and significant portion of farming opinion has been upset. I think it fair to say that in the representations that have been made to the Minister by the leaders of the National Farmers' Union a great deal more moderate impression may have been conveyed than actually exists.
The leaders of the National Farmers' Union have done their best to impress upon their members the urgent national need to get this extra coal and have asked their members to put up with the sacrifice involved as a temporary measure in order to get it. Up to date, the rank and file have accepted that, but I would impress on the right hon. Gentleman how very

strong is this feeling. If this is to be a persistent and continuous process, farming opinion may be so seriously disturbed that there will be a serious reaction. I say that in all seriousness, because I know how strongly they feel about it.

Mr. Nabarro: The Minister does not.

Mr. Nugent: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does. Some hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Ince, have alluded to the sort of conditions that farmers have to put up with when their farms are opened. The conditions are rather exceptional, because in the average case, as the Minister knows. a farmer has to remain on the site. It is his living, and only part of the farm is taken. It is his home and he has nowhere else to go. He hangs on in the hope that he will get back the section of the farm which has been taken in not too long a time. In practice, the seams are opened within 50 yards or so of his house and not only does he have 20 or 30 acres of the farm taken from him, but he must endure, during the period that the pit may be open, mud in the winter, dust in the summer and the din which goes on continuously with the operations.
That is really torture to the wretched farmer. I think sometimes people in towns do not realise just how strongly the farmer feels about his fields. Most people realise that he gets fond of his animals, but he gets equally fond of his fields. He ploughs them, sows them, and harvests them and has known them for perhaps 40, or even 50 years. When they are torn up for this hideous process to a depth of, perhaps, 150 feet, or 200 feet and an enormous heap of overburden rears on the skyline it is an absolute rape of the land and he feels hurt in his deepest feelings. I believe it is that injury to personal feelings which is causing such deep disturbance and resentment among the farming community today.
I have spoken of the upset to sentiment because I want to bring home to the right hon. Gentleman just how strong that feeling is. I hope that now we have had the opportunity of bringing this before the Committee the right hon. Gentleman will give full weight to it and that in the measures he takes he will try to stimulate the efforts of the National Coal Board and will feel that he has even stronger reasons for prodding them to do better than they have done in the past.
I want to say a word about restoration. In the cost figures which the Minister mentioned he assumed that the land when restored was back in full production; but that, of course, is not the case. I have to bring a charge of complacency against the Parliamentary Secretary, especially in this matter of restoration. I will read a short extract from a letter he wrote to the "Daily Telegraph," goaded, no doubt, by the attacks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. This is what the Parliamentary Secretary wrote:
It is misleading to suggest that the land is generally lost to farming production for many years. Soil conditions and results of restoration vary from site to site and generalisation one way or the other is unsafe, but, with proper arrangements for soil replacement, and after treatment and management of the disturbed land, there is no doubt that good results are possible. On many sites recovery has been rapid and good crops are being grown.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I interrupted him to ask him what area of land had been cropped with cereals.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I can give the acreage. In the West Riding, of which I was speaking, it was 1,300 under cereals and 810 acres back to grass.

Mr. Nugent: While I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving the figures, I must confess that I have not been so fortunate in the opencast areas I have inspected in finding a successful restoration now growing cereal crops.
The fact is that cultivation of this restored land remains a gamble. The reason why the farmers are anxious to get it back again is obviously because it is an integral part of their farms and they need it in order to graze their livestock. They need it in the hope that they will be able to earn a decent living, and they ask for it back as soon as they can have it. As a practical farmer, if I were offered a farm of restored land at a nil rent I would not take it. I should regard it as too speculative and not worth the labour, the fertilisers and the seed I would have to put into it to try to grow ordinary crops. That is the general impression in regard to restored land.
I allow that there has been some improvement in the last few years and in the last year or two in particular. The days when the unhappy farmer might put the plough in the field and find it engaged in a motorcar are definitely past, but that did happen. In the infilling a motorcar had been stuck in a field in Lancashire and it was a common practice to find staunchions and wire rope and so on sticking out of the ground which would break any implement. I agree that it is improving, but the fundamental difficulties of restoration are, first, to get the topsoil off completely and, secondly, to get it spread back evenly. It is a difficult process to get the topsoil spread evenly, bearing in mind that the average depth of topsoil is only eight inches. I fully realise that it is an inherent difficulty.
In addition to that problem, there is another. The topsoil is thrown up in a large heap where it may stand for two, three or even five years before it is spread back on the land. During that time there is no doubt that it loses its life. The humus in the soil goes out of it, and the bacteria and the earthworms disappear. The result is that when it is put back, even if it is successfully spread, it will not grow plants properly.
I have seen a large number of these sites. The result is that when the first ley is put down, with the aid of fertilisers, it looks good to start with and the farmer thinks that he will have some good grass. But after the first year it begins to go back, in the second year it goes back further, and by the third year it looks very poor indeed. In the normal cases which I have seen, it would be impossible to sow a cereal crop with anything but a virtual certainty of failure. The farmer would have to sow another ley to try to rebuild the fertility of the soil and to get it back into a normal condition.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would welcome suggestions, and I have one to make about topsoil. He has set up his technical advisory committee to advise upon restoration. Here, again, I must make the charge that, not he, but his predecessor, did not do that five years ago. That is when it ought to have been done, because this is a difficult process. However, the Minister has now got a technical advisory committee with first-rate personnel. I know Dr. Morley Davies, the chairman, and I have no doubt that


he will give the most admirable advice. The best advice would be to stop doing this work of opencast, but, failing that, he will give the best advice about the restoration of the land.
I suggest that that advisory committee should go to Brunswick, in Germany, to study the restoration of land at the lignite workings there. Those workings have been there for 50 years. There the process of restoration is to return the overburden on one site before they remove the top soil on the next site, so that they have got the overburden settled in the excavation and the whole site levelled. Then they remove the top soil from the next site; often within 24 hours they spread it on the site previously excavated. In that way it is possible to maintain full fertility in the top soil and so establish crops with a fraction of the difficulty which we have experienced.
There is another point about restoration, and that is the question of drainage. It is impossible to say how long it will be before the restored land can be called drained land. It is impossible to say how long it will be before that land has really settled down and stopped shifting. Until it has settled down, it is impossible to drain it effectively. The replaced soil runs together like a pudding, especially as most of the overburden on the sites is clay. There is only one effective way of draining it and that is to use the tile drainage system. That cannot be used until the land has settled. The only step to take, in the meantime, is to make open ditches on the surface of the land. That complicates the operation of the land and the grazing of stock, and it is no solution at all.
We all know—and the Minister of Agriculture would confirm it if there is any doubt—that it is impossible to farm land which is not properly drained. Drainage will present a persistent problem for some time to come. I should like to know how the restoration work is done at the lignite workings in Germany and how they overcome the drainage difficulty. I believe that they do what they call "sculpting" of the land to an even slope, which allows the water to run oft. it. and is done rather more cunningly than we have been able to do it here. These are points well worth looking into.
Until the land is properly restored, the Minister would be doing better by the farmers if he kept on his requisition and allowed the farmers to occupy under licence. There is no doubt that much of this land has been returned before it has been properly restored. The fences are still collapsing. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has learned by now that it is far better to plant a hedge, which will stay there, than to put in concrete posts. As soon as there is a subsidence, the posts tilt and snap off, and all the farmer's stock get out. These are some of the difficulties which the farmers have to put up with.
I have no time in which to say more than a few words about amenities. That subject has already been dealt with. The fact is that, however cunningly the land is contoured, the amenities will never be the same again. The lumps and bumps seem to appear in the wrong places, and the land looks like nothing so much as an elderly lady who has had a face lift. It certainly does not look like a lovely countryside.
In conclusion, I want to stress the three points which have been made. The first was the tremendously heavy cost of opencast mining to the nation, first in the loss of amenities and, secondly, in the loss of food production—not merely from the land which is excavated, which is probably lost for a long time because it is not properly restored, but also by the depressing influence on surrounding areas. The second point was the disturbance to the whole farming community and the deterrent to proper development, reconditioning and building which should normally be done in the threatened areas. Finally, I have referred to the undoubted human suffering which the wretched farmers have to put up with. I believe that opencast work ought to be brought to an end. This is, in sum, really an intolerable price to pay.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have been fortified by what we have been able to say today and that he has got a far stronger case to stiffen his resolution when next he meets his friends on the National Coal Board. I hope that he will make them face their obligations and get the coal the nation needs from deep mines, and thus prevent this continued rape of the countryside.

6.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I am certain that the whole Committee was struck by the measured restraint and the constructive nature of the speech of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent). He certainly put the case extremely well. It is one with which we on this side of the Committee have every sympathy. I can only say, in closing the Debate, that I, for one, appreciated the tone and temper of his contribution. as I am sure did my hon. Friends.
I was interested in what he had to say about the way in which the Germans treat their lignite opencast working. If we have anything to learn from them, my right hon. Friend is willing to send an expert to examine their work. If it is better than ours, we shall take advantage of their experience in our desire to ensure that land which we are restoring is restored as perfectly as man can possibly make it after the disturbance we have created.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not the least bit complacent—none of us is—about opencast coal. I think that the letter I wrote to the "Daily Telegraph" was reasonably good. The extract which the hon. Gentleman read out was about right. It does not smack of complacency, but what it did say was that we cannot generalise. That is really the fault of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). He is always generalising in these matters, and as a result he gets a the rails.
The speech of the hon. Member for Guildford was in contra-distinction to the rather knockabout, robust speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken). His speech, and the speeches of some of his hon. Friends, showed that they only want to use this Debate as a political stick with which to beat the Government, though some hon Gentlemen opposite put forward constructive criticisms. That emphasises the misapprehensions and the lack of knowledge in the Committee, and in the country, about the effects of opencast mining operations. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a long treatise which I suppose had been pushed into him at school—because he went through the generations in perfect order—of the houses built in the different

periods which had all been pulled down. We have not pulled down any houses when we have been dealing with opencast coal. It is the financial trusts and syndicates which ripped down good houses and put up block of luxury flats, and incidentally made a lot of money out of them. They are the people who desecrated this country and its beautiful. houses, and not us—

Mr. Bracken: Does the hon. Gentleman now promise that Staunton Harold, one of the most beautiful Georgian house properties in this country, is not to be subjected to opencast operations? If so. we shall all be very grateful to him.

Mr. Robens: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the arguments in respect of the site around that historic place will be carefully weighed against the amount of coal to be got. We are going into that now, and I hope that within a short time we shall be able to say what are our views upon it.
This confusion of thought was carried on by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) who, having made his case, has not bothered to come back to listen to the reply. It is rather typical of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they read reports from newspapers, or state something somebody told them; but very few of them get up and say that they have seen what they are talking about and have examined the facts for themselves. The hon. Member for Twickenham read out a statement which he said he had obtained from a newspaper, and which was made by an adviser to the Derbyshire County Agricultural Committee. We cannot trace any such adviser. The man who wrote that has no official status at all; he is not even employed by the County Agricultural Executive Committee. To say that horses' hooves sink into the soil and that crops cannot be grown, is proved to be a complete misconception.
When we see a sight such as is shown in this photograph which I hold in my hand, of a combine harvester going over restored land from which 30,000 tons of coal was extracted, it does not bear out the arguments of so-called experts who say that it cannot possibly be done. I entirely agree that it would be possible to take photographs showing a lot of desolation, and that is why I consider


I am right when I say that this is not a matter for generalisation. It is a matter for saying that it is important we should get the coal and there cannot be any disagreement about that—but it is no use harking back and trying to beat the Government and the Ministry and the miners for what they are doing.
The fact is that we must have the coal, and it is our duty as the Department responsible, to get that coal with as little nuisance and upset as possible to everybody concerned. I can tell the Committee quite honestly and sincerely that we have tried to do that. I have been on sites in every part of the United Kingdom. I have met farmers on their land and members of local authorities. I have also met what almost amounted to public meetings of angry residents, and discussed these things with them. I have never bothered about having to go and talk to people who are affected, whose houses have been damaged, because, in the main, the average person in this country has a great sense of public interest, and is prepared to put up with inconvenience when shown that, as a result, the nation will benefit.
We really must do what we can to restore the land to its proper fertility. In order to prove the case I now make, that this question of restoration is one very largely of opinion and difference of opinion between experts, I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I read an extract which I took from the "Manchester Guardian" of last July. I will quote it without comment. It is headed, "Cost of Opencast Coal." This was written by a member of the staff of the "Manchester Guardian":
For an assessment of the agricultural value of the land"—
this is after opencast coal had been taken from it—
I went to Mr. Elmhirst, whose forebears secured the first grant from James I to work coal at Silkstone. From the farmhouse that has been the home of the Elmhirsts since the 16th Century, Mr. Elmhirst carries out a scientific direction of five farms. 'The land is hungry,' he said. 'We hang on by the skin of our teeth against urban expansion. The soil has a tremendous acidity, and smoke is anathema to oaks and beeches.'
So far as restoration of mined land is concerned, Mr. Elmhirst is at variance with Mr. W. P. Bashforth (the N.F.U. Secretary) and in agreement with local executive agricultural officers in believing that it shows

improvement. In fact, he does not know 'of any restored site that is not growing more food than it was before mining.'
I quote this, because of the difference of opinion between him and other admitted experts on agriculture. This is the point about public interest:
Mr. Elmhirst supplied the final comment on the vice or virtue of opencast coal mining. 'Five years is nothing in the life of the soil,' he said. If coal is there and we need it, it must he got whatever the place and whoever the owner. But I would not give a final judgment on the sites until 30 years had passed.'
I quote that in order to show the difference between experts, the difference between the practical men working on the farm.
When we are dealing with land restoration, indeed before the site is opened up, consultations take place on the site with the Land Commissioner, the Agricultural Executive Committee and the farmer about restoration; and the land is not handed back until it is seen by the Agricultural Executive Committee—a number of members of whom are, of course, working farmers. Regarding what the hon. Member for Guildford said—and I would not doubt him for a moment—that the land, in the first year of food production is good, and then there is a recession, I think that mainly happens when the farm has not been correctly managed. With the co-operation of the farmer, we find from our experience that it does not happen.
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, said something about rumours. He knows a lot about rumours because he was telling us the other week that he had heard a rumour that Lord Hyndley was about to resign—

Mr. Bracken: He is, too.

Mr. Robens: That has not come off yet.

Mr. Bracken: No, but he is.

Mr. Robens: What the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee really wanted to know was what was the opencast programme. In January of this year we announced that we wanted 45 million tons by 1953. The output we are planning is as follows: 1950, 13 million tons; 1951, 12 million tons; 1952, 11 million tons; 1953, 8 to 9 million tons, and then


the contracts will tail off as this particular programme finishes.

Mr. Bracken: And then will it all end?

Mr. Robens: It will tail off after 1953. It is not proposed to go on with any extension after that time.

Mr. Nabarro: We are delighted with the assurances from the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter. But may I remind him that in 1946 the then Minister of Fuel and Power said it would end in 1949 in 1948 the then Minister of Fuel and Power said it would end in 1950. and the Parliamentary Secretary himself—

Mr. Bracken: Give the Parliamentary Secretary a chance.

Mr. Robens: The hon. Member for Kidderminster is only repeating what the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch said at the beginning of his speech—

Mr. Bracken: It is none the worse for that.

Mr. Robens: No, it is none the worse for that, but the fact is that he is quite wrong, and if he consults the records he will see that that is so.
I wished to say a good deal about the procedure adopted in relation to our exploration of local areas, the basis of compensation etc., but obviously there is not now time, it being 7 o'clock. I would say to every hon. Member who has taken part in the Debate that where they have raised specific questions about specific sites, we will read carefully what they have said and write to each one of them giving a full reply to any point which they have raised. The matter boils down to this: we must have the coal, we have to get the coal, the national interest depends upon our getting the coal, but we shall get it with as little nuisance to everyone concerned as we possibly can.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLASS 1

TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,193,181, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year

ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments, incuding additional salary payable to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the salary of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs

EUROPEAN PAYMENTS UNION

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I think that some apology is due to the Minister of State for Economic Affairs for bringing him out of the skies from Geneva into this Committee by raising this topic at such short notice. The official documents have been in the hands of hon. Members for only a very short time. The conclusion of these conversations, however, happens to have come at an awkward Parliamentary time and we had no alternative but to raise the matter. It is true that the Chancellor has told us that our participation in the European Payments Union will require legislation, but already some irrevocable steps have been taken, mainly in regard to the liberalisation of trade. It may be that other almost irrevocable steps may have to be taken during the Recess, so we on this side of the Committee feel that the matter had better be discussed now if we are not to be faced with a virtual fait accompli when we return after the Recess.
I will be brief and avoid technicalities as much as the subject permits, which is perhaps not very much. I have three points to make. I wish first to urge the Government to give much more information about the sterling balances. Second, I want to applaud, in principle, any steps towards the convertibility of sterling, even in a limited area, and to welcome any sensible advance on the road to economic co-operation and solidarity in Europe. Third, I want to voice misgivings about some of these arrangements, and try to elucidate some information. As I have said they represent a general advance, but they also show that an opportunity has been lost. I think that their effect is to make sterling unnecessarily plentiful at a time when it appears to me to be in the national interest to make it scarcer.
My first point is a simple one regarding information. No one would deny that the sterling balances are one of the major factors in the whole of our economy, and are the most important factor in our exter-


nal finances. The convertibility crisis of 1947 was, in my view, brought about very largely by too lavish releases of sterling balances. We consider that since the crisis releases have been too large and that that has contributed greatly to the crisis which led to devaluation.
Looking at the subject as a whole, blocked, semi-blocked and quick debts amounting to £3,340 million are of the highest importance to our position in the world. It is undeniable that we see here a strange Parliamentary paradox. No legislature in the world is more sensitive than is the House to any threat to its financial control of the nation's affairs. Much of our procedure is based upon this and shows its unmistakable influence. For example, we have spent, in one way or another, 13 days in considering the Finance Bill, in the course of which we have seen Amendments ruled out of order because they would create a charge on the public. It is very strange that minor financial matters should come so closely under the scrutiny of the House while we are left in ignorance about the details of sterling balances.
Am I justified in saying that we are left in ignorance? Those like myself who, in an unofficial position, have to deal in these matters, find a great conflict of views. I will give an example. In the "Banker" of May, 1950, an authority estimated the sterling balances of those countries within the European Payments Union at no less than £400 million. I happen to think that he was entirely wrong. The actual figure he put was £381 million of identifiable balances. My researches, carried on in the watches of the night, lead me to suppose that they were about £150 million. I was encouraged to find that the "Economist" of last Saturday had reached the same figure. In a written reply yesterday, the Chancellor stated that they were of the order of £200 million.
Surely it is unfair to the House that information should be so much delayed and that figures should be so difficult to obtain and so difficult to identify. The only official information which we have about the sterling balances embraced in the European Payments Union have been extracted from the Chancellor by the persistence and assiduity of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest

(Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). Getting information out of the Treasury on this subject of sterling balances is rather like pulling the back teeth out of a mule.

The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Gaitskell): Has the right hon. Gentleman ever tried it?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, but that is what I am told. It has far too often become necessary for my hon. and gallant Friend to act in the role of the extracting veterinary surgeon. If we are later to be asked to ratify the E.P.U., we should be given the detailed figures of these balances and be told by whom they are held.
I will give another illustration of why they are so important. We are quite at a loss to know what proportion of our total exports are paid for—I have been long enough in commerce to think that not an unimportant part of a commercial transaction—in useable currency. We are only told what the money value and the volume of our exports are. It is not very difficult to stimulate exports if at the end of the day, the so-called payment for them consists of a clerk in the Bank of England drawing a red line through a portion of a sterling balance. The sterling balances are the counterpart of unrequited exports. I enter a most earnest plea for greater information to be accorded to the House.
To turn to my second point, the E.P.U. is designed with two complementary objects—to create the convertibility of currencies in Europe, and, bound up with that, to liberalise intra-European trade. I often make the point that the prime object of our economic policy must be to make sterling into a convertible currency. It is necessary to repeat that this is an obvious objective only because so many actions of His Majesty's Government and so many speeches of His Majesty's Ministers—not those at present on the Government benches but others —would appear to neglect it. The campaign against the capitalist, on whose efforts recovery depends, the attack upon profits, the network of financial controls, the soaring level of taxation, are instances of what I mean.
We should welcome any scheme which tends to make European currencies convertible even if in a limited area. We must also welcome the participation of the United States in their attempts to put Europe on its feet, and the 350 to


400 million free dollars with which she is backing the scheme. We on these benches have a rather strong impression that the general idea of European cooperation is viewed with reluctance, to put it no higher, by the Socialist Party. Socialism must always be isolationist in character. It does not readily thrive in a world of free exchange either of goods or currency. If I may say so, it also gives us as little paper as it can for the free exchange of ideas in our own country. Anything that broadens the frontiers of our economy is generally to be welcomed.
I dare say that the Government have sunk some of their apprehensions over E.P.U. in the desire, at long last, to become rather more "yes-men" and rather less "no-men" in European politics than they have shown themselves to be in the last five years. They have earned the title in European affairs of "inverted Micawbers." It is said that the British Government, unlike Micawber, are always waiting for things to turn down rather than turn up. So far, I hope I have made it clear that, if we are to make any contribution of value from these benches, we are entitled to far more information, and secondly, whatever we may think of the present agreement and however it has been worked out, it is at least a step towards convertibility and towards the liberalisation of trade which we welcome.
I do not propose to dwell very long on the subject of the liberalisation of trade, except to say that the pattern of European trade has shown some startling changes during the last decade, and it is very difficult to know what effect upon some of our industries this liberalisation may have. The subject does not range as widely as one would have thought at first, because there is a great deal of make-believe about the liberalisation of trade. The present arrangements, for example, do not affect tariffs and apply only to open licences, so that they prevent the quantitative restriction of imports.
Furthermore, the liberalisation of trade in Europe applies only to private trade carried on by private individuals, and does not extend to Government trading. All the operations, for example, of the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Supply are excluded from the liberalisation arrangements, and Socialist doctrine is here seen to be prepared to swallow trade being liberalised if carried on by private

individuals but takes great care to exclude its own trading operations from these arrangements. This does not surprise me in the least. It is part of the isolationism to which I have referred.
These exclusions have not escaped notice on the Continent, where they have a strange ring about them when we are talking about measures to liberalise trade and make currencies convertible. Such exceptions—and they are by no means inconsiderable—are blows at a free European economy, upon which the idea of E.P.U. is founded. I think it would be an exaggeration to say that the extra freedom of trade which will come as the result of the agreement will be negligible, but I do think that the number of commodities covered will turn out not to be very significant.
Again, to reinforce this point, looking at the tariff side of the picture, while it is good that no inroads are to be made into Imperial Preference, very much freedom is still left to manipulate tariffs against the liberalisation of trade and it has been not infrequently used. I have here an extract from the Economic Survey for 1949, which is a United Nations publication, and on page 102 it is stated:
It is apparent that in a number of instances countries in the trade liberalisation programme have consented to drop their quotas of particular commodities, secure in the knowledge that their still existent Customs duties would provide adequate protection against outside competition.
As in the case of French imports of certain foodstuffs from neighbouring countries, the effect has been the opposite of that intended under the programme, since the collection of duties had been suspended and their reimposition has proved to be a more serious limitation than the quotas which have now been dropped.
Italy is now in the process of drastically revising its whole tariff schedule upwards, and in the meantime has not lifted quotas on any products for which tariff rates are being raised.
So that, when we look at the liberalisation of trade, we find that, though it sounds a nice, rotund phrase, there is a great deal of make-believe in it, and these things have not escaped notice on the Continent.
On the other side of the picture, it is quite true that some new European markets are to be opened to us, and we must not regard as insignificant the effect of certain imports on some of our industries, which it is very difficult to foretell. The fact that we might have cheap imports of textiles might cause embarrassment in Lancashire, and I hope that the


Minister of State for Economic Affairs will devote part of his reply to discussing the trade effects of this further liberalisation, because the Government must surely have some picture before them as to how it will affect our trade.
I now turn to the scheme itself, and I apologise to the Committee for plunging into these technicalities, but I would like to say something very simple at the outset. Surely, it should be the object of the Treasury and of this country to make sterling an ever harder currency? Or is that wrong? I remember a few months ago I heard two hon. Members of the party opposite discussing the meaning of "hard currency" in tones which I could not help overhearing. One of them said, "What is your definition of a hard currency?" And the other said, "Well, it is a currency that is hard to get." That may have been the definition of a layman, but I thought it was a felicitous definition, and not at all a bad one.
The object of those who are in charge of our affairs should be to make sterling harder to get. We should try to make sterling scarce and in demand, so that once again the £ sterling may be restored to its former strength and usefulness as a medium of international exchange, and I think it still has potentialities as being the greatest.
There are two main features of the present E.P.U. scheme which act against sterling becoming scarce, and make it too plentiful. The first is allowing our foreign creditors to draw upon their sterling balances and exhaust them in a short period. This injects into the general value of sterling sums which are at the present time partially dammed off from it. We must remember that the sterling balances with which we are dealing under E.P.U. are, in the main, balances which have arisen in the course of inter-European trade since the war. I think that is correct. They differ from sterling balances like those held by India and Egypt, which arose largely out of the war itself. I should have hoped to see these sterling balances dealt with in a more organised manner and released in smaller quantities over a longer period. To the extent that sterling balances are effectively blocked, sterling is made scarcer, and the quicker they are released, the quicker does sterling become more plentiful.
I have some anxieties about the effect of paragraphs 33 and 34. Since paragraph 34 of the proposals for a European Payments Union lays down that any obligation by E.P.U. to make a gold payment to a creditor may be discharged in the creditor's own currency, can the Minister now tell us by what processes—and it is a rhetorical question—the E.P.U. can acquire a holding of the currency of a country which is, by definition, a net creditor of the Union? In particular, if the United Kingdom proves to be a net cumulative creditor of the Union, can the E.P.U. acquire sterling balances either as the result of any utilisation, within the terms of paragraph 39, of sterling balances held by other members on 30th June, or else can it acquire such balances as a result of the initial debit position to be accepted by the United Kingdom? Those are questions on which I should very much like to be reassured.
The second way in which sterling is made more plentiful under the scheme is by extending credits to those who buy our goods so that they do not have to find, at least currently, the sterling to pay for them themselves. I quite admit that this effect does not last for ever. Some day, and in some way not very clear, the sterling credits thus created will be repaid by the import of goods into this country by the transfer of gold, or, if we should change from being a creditor to a debtor nation, then the money owed to us can be used to balance the account if the trading position has changed. I emphasise that the immediate effect of opening credits is to create more current sterling, just as I have said that the effect of allowing people to draw on blocked sterling balances is to increase the current flow of sterling. I feel that in the European Payments Union negotiations there was a fine opportunity of tying up sterling balances in an orderly way, and a fine opportunity of making sterling more sought for and scarcer than it is now.
I turn now to the credit operations. We have to begin with an initial handicap of 150 million dollars or units at the outset. That, at first sight, seems pretty hard and shows that we are intended to take a very full load in the clearing. On the other hand, I must concede that to include the sterling area as a trading whole, and not only Great Britain, is a


very far-sighted move. But the E.P.U. seems to me to apply to a part of the world in which, at any rate at present, we are in a very favourable position. It cuts off a slice, so to speak, of the trading account of the sterling area in which we are likely to be, at least in the near future, in credit balance. To follow this up, since the exports of the Colonial Empire and of the Dominions overseas are paid for by payments into what I may call the common bank, namely, Great Britain, we may look upon the present pattern of European trade as being such that it is highly likely that Great Britain will be a substantial creditor, or, expressed in trading terms, will have a substantial balance of sales over purchases in the area covered by E.P.U.
Again, here is a figure which I should like to have confirmed. It appears to me from a study of the various documents that the sterling area had a surplus of current trade of about 300 million dollars in 1949, that is, on current trading account. It would help me if, in the course of the Debate, the Minister would confirm that figure, because the actual trading figures are considerably obscured by capital movement and the drawing down of sterling balances in the area. I got the figure from table 86 of the Economic Survey. The other figures would seem to be quite different.
I think, for the purpose of my argument, it would be better if I took a hypothetical illustration. Suppose within the year 1951 we had a favourable trade balance of 600 million dollars or units in E.P.U.—that is what [think we shall have in the current 12 months—what happens? It seems to me to be like this. From the 600 million dollars of favourable trade balance, we first have to deduct the initial handicap of 150 million dollars, reducing, so to speak, the favourable trade balance to 450 million dollars. Out of that 450 million, we are obliged to extend clean credits to the tune of 210 million, and that leaves what is outstanding at 240 million. Of that we extend credit to the tune of 120 million and should receive gold to the extent of 120 million. That is how it works. In other words, a favourable trade balance of 600 million is set up out of which we have received 120 million in gold. That seems to me to be making sterling unnecessarily plentiful. and, as I shall show later. this

is evidence of the lack of confidence in sterling which is shown by the present Government.
Everything that is done in the E.P.U. is done on the assumption that in a not-long-distant future we are going to be in debit, and, therefore, the scale is always weighted in favour of the debtor. I think that is unfortunate. It is quite easy to say that we should have been obliged to extend these credits for a large part of this sum in any case, but I do not think that argument has much validity, because it is the scarcity of sterling and the pressure to get it, which builds up a currency into being an international medium of exchange sought after all over the world. For better or for worse, this scarcity of sterling has already been signed away, and, to that extent, sterling has been made more abundant and less scarce.
I think it is fair to say that, judged at short-term—and I do not want to overstate it anywhere—the effect of these credit operations is that under the scheme we should temporarily have made unrequited exports to the tune of 480 million dollars. Of course, at long-term these loans of 480 million have got to be paid to us in some form or other, but currently and for the moment they increase the availability of sterling.
There is a second way in which sterling is made more plentiful, and that is by the valorisation—I apologise for the word, although I think it is convenient—of sterling balances which become, first of all, the medium through which those who owe us currently for goods they have bought can pay for them. If that should not be so, then there is a provision in the agreement which obliges these sterling balances to be repaid with the help of E.P.U. within two years. I think, in principle, there is a good deal of vice in these arrangements, but since the Chancellor's written answer yesterday, I feel a little relief, because the total amount involved, though important, is not so massive. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman used the phrase, "in the region of 200 million dollars." That figure, of course, has to be read in relation to the £3,340 million which is the total of the sterling balances.
I have the impression that into every line of the document can be read the lack of confidence which His Majesty's


Government have in sterling. The balance is tipped, wherever it is possible, in favour of the minus country or the debtor, and I think that over the short period covered by the agreement, we are certain to be large creditors, and that, therefore, this is an unfortunate bias.
There is another matter upon which I should like to have some reassurance. I feel that with the large credit facilities which are now open, it is likely that Europe will increase substantially her purchases from the Dominions—there is nothing very bad in that—and that these purchases will ultimately take the form of sterling balances in London in the hands of the exporting Dominion. I am very apprehensive about how far and for how long this process can go on. We now know that out of £3,340 million of sterling balances, no less than £2,000 million are what might be called "sight" balances over which we have far less control and far less reason to claim control than over the other sterling balances which are the result of war debts. The unfortunate effect of this will be to increase the "sight" sterling balances in London. I think that will have a considerable effect, and I want to know what is the answer to that argument.
I feel that His Majesty's Government have been unduly timorous over this arrangement, and I repeat that they are always haunted by the idea of what has happened to them in the past. They have a prejudice in this matter. They are so accustomed to crises over two or three years that they see another one, even in this area. That is why everything facilitates the debtor from having to pay gold in this arrangement. They instinctively think that that is where they are going to be short. I do not believe they will be in this area. That is my third point.
To sum up, first, I most earnestly ask for more information about the sterling balances, not only in the E.P.U. area but elsewhere as well. It may be that we have some contribution to make from these benches. We should make that contribution much better if we were given this information. Secondly, I think this scheme is in the right direction, and I have pointed out that there are going to be large categories of trade which, in my opinion, are unaffected by this so-called liberalisation. Lastly, sterling is being

made unnecessarily plentiful on current account. It is a commentary upon our times that an arrangement so complicated as this, although it is described in clear language, should have to be set up at all. It is almost beyond the grasp of those who are not experts, or who are not economists or cambists.
All that the scheme does is to try to replace the finely adjusted mechanism of the free market in exchange which used to rule these matters. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman described this scheme as one of the greatest achievements of European co-operation—he repeated it twice in his statement—he descended, for once, into hyperbole. Perhaps he did so because any evidence of British co-operation in any international agreement will be held as some evidence of enlightenment. However, I feel that a considerable opportunity has been lost. If it would be unfair and unjust to describe the scheme as a bad one, it would be positively fulsome to give it an unqualified blessing in its present form. We hope that some of the imperfections will be removed, and, if that is done as a result of any arguments advanced from this side of the House, we shall feel that this Debate has not been in vain.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Crosland: The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has given the scheme a rather less warm welcome than I thought it would have received from right hon. and hon. Members opposite. It was a little difficult to understand, from some parts of his speech, what was exactly the main line of his criticism, because once or twice he said the scheme was too timorous, and yet he went on to say it required from us sacrifices on too excessive a scale. Once or twice he said the scheme was not going far enough in liberalising trade, because it only covered private trading under open licence, and, on another occasion, that it was going dangerously fast.
I merely want to say something briefly on his general arguments, before coming to one or two general points of my own. The right hon. Gentleman argued very strongly that we were giving credits too freely and, therefore, making sterling too plentiful over the world and, possibly, undermining confidence in sterling in the future. I should have thought that, at the moment, this was a very exaggerated


fear and, in any event, I do not think we should have this fear to too great an extent.
The worst possible result of making sterling too scarce, namely, that we should begin to lose gold on a considerable scale, is almost entirely ruled out by the many safeguards in the scheme against our losing gold.

Mr. Lyttelton: If the hon. Member will forgive me, I think he may have made a slip of the tongue. We do not lose gold if sterling becomes scarce.

Mr. Crosland: I meant to say, of course, that if sterling was too plentiful, the main danger would be that we would lose gold. Although we certainly do not want sterling to be so plentiful that its value falls on world markets in a serious fashion, nevertheless, we do not want to have a bias for making sterling excessively scarce. Dollars have often been too scarce, and we should not have had any of our dollar difficulties in the last two or three years if the dollar had been more plentiful and less scarce than it has been. It is not a desirable object of economic policy to emulate the scarcity of the dollar in the case of sterling. We could, of course, quite easily make sterling exceedingly scarce—by blocking all sterling balances, restricting imports even further, and building up a large trade surplus. But the effect of this would be seriously to contract international trade.
Any attempt to make sterling into a currency anything like so scarce as the dollar has been would have a disastrous and a restrictive effect on world trade as a whole. I should have thought that the right policy for us, as a member of the Western European community, was to make sterling as plentiful as we can, subject, of course, to safeguarding its essential position. In other words, we should not have too strong a bias in favour of restricting the use of sterling, because by providing plentiful sterling we are helping trade within Western Europe, and helping Western Europe to expand its trade. I am, therefore, glad that we are willing to extend this credit.
I think this is now a very good agreement. In its original form it was not at all a good agreement, but the British negotiators—and I am certain they deserve a great deal of congratulation—have improved it and have removed the

worst dangers. The general outcome is a largely satisfactory agreement. A good deal of credit must go, undoubtedly, to the American negotiators, who, I understand, have sat in on all the discussions and who, quite evidently, even from releases in the Press, have played a large part in producing the agreement in its present form.
I am certain that this is the right line upon which to advance. It is an interesting contrast to compare this line of advance with the Schuman Plan. It seems to me that this fact, that we can get a good agreement like this on the basis of inter-Governmental negotiations—a really satisfactory and concrete agreement—shows that it is a much more satisfactory approach to the whole problem of Western European unity than the "airy fairy" schemes of the kind which have been hinted at a good deal in recent weeks.
It would not have been a possible scheme if we had not had devaluation of the pound. I did not have the privilege of being in the House at the time, but, whatever the argument then, there is no doubt that devaluation of sterling was a necessary condition of our entering E.P.U. at all; because it very largely devaluation of sterling which has removed the disequilibrium between Belgium and Switzerland and the rest of Europe. It has very largely removed the Belgian surplus which, if it had continued, would have made any European agreement virtually impossible. If we had not had devaluation of sterling, I do not think we should have had a sufficient degree of equilibrium in European trade to make E.P.U. possible.
The really encouraging thing about it is that it ends one of the most unsatisfactory periods in Anglo-American economic relations, a period of continual differences and disputes on international trade policy. We have had this almost absurd contrast between American theories of complete multilateralism, convertibility, and non-discrimination, and the practice of discrimination and non-convertibility forced upon all European countries by the fact of dollar scarcity. The consequent arguments across the Atlantic between European practice and American theory have been bad for Anglo-American relations, and good for nothing at all in particular.
But now we find the American experts backing this agreement, which means that at last we have agreement between European practice and American theory; and the most encouraging thing about these negotiations is that we have had full American support right through and, for once, there has been no dispute in this field of international policy. I very much hope that we shall never again have any discussions of the kind that have been going on in Paris recently, about the future of European or any other sector of world trade, without the Americans and Canadians co-operating as closely as they have been co-operating in the E.P.U. discussions in recent months.
Everybody is now more or less agreed for the first time on the subject of world trade; at any rate, they are agreed on the short-term objects of world trade.

Sir Herbert Williams: The purpose is to sell goods.

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman says that the object of world trade is to sell goods, but I would add that it does not help to sell goods to make sterling excessively scarce.
We have, at any rate, reached a fairly general agreement that if there is a really serious unbalance in any part of international trade, non-discrimination, convertibility and multilateralism will have a bad effect and not a good effect, because they tend to restrict world trade. We have still got a very serious unbalance over the dollar. Therefore, as far as world trade is concerned, nobody suggests now that we should immediately introduce total convertibility and total multilateralism. But in Europe, for various reasons, and because of the progress we have made in the past few months, we have no serious unbalance in intra-European trade, and we can, therefore, make an experiment in multilateralism and convertibility in this regional non-dollar area. For the first time we now have agreement in both the European and the North Atlantic communities on this important half-way house.
For these reasons, I welcome this agreement very much. There are risks, but I think they are very slight indeed. There are so many safeguards in the agreement, that the risks of our losing

gold on a large scale are almost negligible. There are minor criticisms—for instance I should have liked to have seen more sanctions put on the persistent creditor country, but I think that all the criticisms of the agreement are essentially of minor character. On the main matter, it seems to me a very big advance both towards closer European unity and a greater expansion of world trade.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: I cannot agree with all that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) has said, but I can certainly agree with him in welcoming any movement in the direction of freer and more multilateral trade. The fact that it is made by a Socialist Government makes it, perhaps, in some ways all the more pleasant to be able to welcome it.
I think this agreement is to be welcomed. It is an achievement, but I think it is a pity that too much stress should be laid on the greatness of the achievement. Certainly, it is a tribute to the powers and persistence of our negotiators that agreement should have been reached at all. But in paying tribute to that, we should not be led into thinking that a great deal has been achieved in this agreement. It is, after all, still an agreement between the central banks, and it is an agreement the effects of which in liberalising and spreading more multilateral trade, though noticeable, are not likely to be very large in the comparatively short space of time which is to be covered by this agreement.
The agreement is to be welcomed because it is a step in the right direction of more multilateral trade, and it is also to be welcomed because it assists our relations with the Americans in the development of plans for American assistance to Europe. I agree also with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South, that improvements have been made in the last few months. In particular, it seems to me that the present scheme does a good deal to safeguard the position of sterling as an international currency and to prevent any trenching in on the very wide use of sterling that is at present accepted in the trading centres of the world.
I cannot help feeling that people, mainly abroad but sometimes in this country, are very wrong when they talk


about sterling as if it were just another European currency, and say, "Why should sterling have a special position?" The reason why it seems to me sterling should have a special position in a scheme such as this is that as a currency sterling is more important in international trade than all the rest of the European currencies put together.
I am convinced that the present scheme prevents the reduction in the widespread use of sterling as a money of account which might have been brought about by the earlier schemes, but I cannot help feeling that we have had to pay a heavy price for the concessions which we have obtained to our point of view, and I would imagine that part of that heavy price which we have had to pay is making sterling very much more freely available in the European area, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was pointing out.
I would say this to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South. In considering whether it is a good thing to have sterling scarce or readily available, surely it is important to consider what part of the world one is talking about. Surely it is the excesive availability of sterling in the sterling area and in soft currency areas which has acted as a drag on our export trade, diverting our exports which might otherwise have gone to the hard currency areas. It seems to me that creating profusion in regard to sterling in western Europe, or in India or Egypt for that matter, is likely to weaken the general trading position of this country rather than to strengthen it.
There are one or two questions I want to put to the Minister about some of the details of this agreement. The first is this: Are there any limitations in time about the use by members of the Union of their drawing rights, or their credit, as there is in the International Monetary Fund? Or can people make full use of all the credit to which they are entitled straightaway? I imagine that some countries might well want to do so. No doubt, there is a check in the fact that after the first 20 per cent. gold has to be paid pari passu with the obtaining of credit.
I should like to link with that the fact that in the early stages of the operation of the Union compensation is to be made

at two-monthly rather than at one-monthly intervals. A very great deal can happen in these international monetary matters within the space of two months, and by the time the calculations have been completed by the agents a good deal more than two months will have elapsed. May I also link with that a further plea for publication of information? I think it is most important that Parliament should be given the greatest possible information on the working of the scheme, particularly in its initial stages.
The next question I want to ask is this: As I understand it, the scheme is solely concerned with payments on current account, and does not affect capital transfers. Are the Government satisfied that it will be possible, in practice, to distinguish between current payments and capital transfers in this context? I have no doubt that the Minister will say that the introduction of E.P.U. does not in any way detract from our current exchange control regulations. It is a pity that it does not. It shows how little this scheme advances in the direction of really free trade, that there is no variation at all from our existing exchange control. Is there not a possibility that other countries, partners in the Union, may not have exchange controls of such efficiency and rigour as that operated by His Majesty's Government, and is there not some possibility of damage to our position arising from that fact?
I want to say a word or two about the question of the sterling balances—first of all, the sterling balances held by European members of E.P.U. Let me ask this simple question of fact. We have heard a lot of the balances held in this country by other members of E.P.U. Are there any balances held by us in member countries? Are all these sums of £150 million or £200 million, to which references have been made, net or gross? Are there any British balances in European capitals? My next point is this: I am encouraged to see that the E.C.A. authorities have undertaken to make good to us out of E.C.A. funds any losses of gold which we may suffer by reason of European holders of sterling balances using them to make good their deficits at the periodical compensations when they are worked out.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really certain that it will be possible


always to determine to what extent a loss of gold; if we suffer such a loss, will have been due to the use of sterling balances and to what extent it will have been due to the other, many, contributory causes which will, of course, arise? No doubt that subject has been very carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, but I should welcome an assurance that it will be possible to determine the sum in gold which we should receive if, unhappily, we should lose gold as a result of the operation of this agreement.
I am not clear as to the effect which this agreement will have on the sterling balances of countries outside the E.P.U. area and, particularly, the free sterling balances of other members of the Sterling Area. I imagine that the Sterling Area countries hold a very high proportion of the free sterling balances in London, amounting, I think, from what the Economic Survey says, to £2,000 million. As I understand it, at the moment all those free sterling balances are freely spendable in Western Europe, by agreement between the British Government and the Governments holding the balances.
Will E.P.U. make any alteration to that position, in two regards? First of all, will the payments scheme, with the liberalisation proposals, taken together, make it likely that free sterling balances held by Sterling Area countries will be more rapidly spent than at present in European countries; and, secondly, will the consequences of such spending, in terms of possible loss of gold to this country, be worse under E.P.U. than they were previously when we had obligations to pay certain countries, such as Belgium, in gold, but not other countries, such as, for example, Italy?
These questions are rather complicated, but I hope I have made the point clear. I saw on the tape yesterday that an announcement was made in Australia giving the impression that a good deal of imports would flow from the Belgian and Portuguese monetary areas to Australia. Does any danger arise of a good deal wider spending of sterling balances in Europe, which may lead us to lose gold through the E.P.U. arrangements?
Those are the detailed questions about the scheme which I wanted to ask. I

want now to say one or two words about the broader aspects, particularly the proposals for liberalisation of trade. We on this side of the Committee naturally welcome schemes for liberalising trade and for promoting competition. This country has gone a long way in liberalising trade and if we are to go further, under this scheme, I hope we are satisfied that there is an effective international machine of some kind to make sure that we get our quid for our quo, to make sure that for what we give up, someone, in exchange, makes us a fair recompense; because at the present time it seems quite arguable that we have given up more to other people, than they have been prepared to give up to us.
Certainly, there are considerable advantages for our export trade in the liberalising of trade between members of E.P.U., if the agreement is effectively carried out. For instance, Turkey has, I believe, been so short of sterling as to have had great difficulty in placing many orders in this country and, of course, that may be a contributory reason for the fact that German industry has so strongly re-established its position in Turkey. I should welcome an assurance from the Government that they have formed an estimate of the effect on our trading position, both in this country and in the Colonies and other countries of the sterling area, of the very great upsurge of German exports which will almost certainly result from the operation of this agreement. After all, the main reason why German competition is such a relatively small factor today is that the mark is a hard currency, is the equivalent of a dollar—is an extension of the dollar, in fact; and that is one of the main barriers to German competition against our goods in most of the world's markets.
Recently, I have heard quoted on a number of occasions rather disturbing examples of how German manufacturers can under-cut British prices. The other day a man trying to buy machinery for fabricating aluminium obtained quotations from British firms and from German firms, and the German quotations for exactly the same machines, with a very short delivery date, were anything up to 50 per cent. lower than the quotations given by British manufacturers, who also had to quote a much longer delivery date.


I believe that competition from Germany may be very intense as a result of the operation of this agreement. I do not think we should become frightened about that: I believe competition is a good thing. But I beg His Majesty's Government to realise that British industry, already operating under many handicaps, will be faced with a new threat which will make it even more difficult for them.
Finally, all these arrangements for liberalising or multilateralising trade within Europe, increase the danger to this country and to employment in this country which will arise from our remaining an island of inflation in a deflationary Europe. The barriers which the Socialist Government and Socialist economists would like to erect against deflationary pressure coming from our European neighbours are bound to be weakened by this payments agreement. I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing in itself, but I would emphasise that the operation of the scheme will increase the danger to the level of employment in this country if we continue to maintain our present inflationary monetary policy.
Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to encourage all other countries in Europe to follow his own particular brand of monetary policy, but I suggest that at any rate we must be prepared for the eventuality that some of them will not be willing to do so. If we are left as one single inflationary country in an area of much freer trade and payments than at present, and where deflationary forces are ruling, then the threat to our economy may be quite serious.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Richard Adams: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) I join in giving these proposals a rather warmer welcome than that given to them by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). I thought that the hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was rather kinder to the proposals than was the right hon. Gentleman himself. It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman was rather juggling with words in trying to make up his mind whether to blame or to bless these proposals, and that has resulted in his making one or two contradictory statements. For instance, he said that the agreement was

not liberal enough, but he did not go on to make any precise proposals of how he would make the arrangements more liberal if he were in office and were sitting round the table developing the proposals.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I was relieved to find that Imperial Preference is in no way affected by these proposals. The right hon. Gentleman, however, went on to suggest that he would like other tariffs lowered and yet, in almost the next sentence, he complained about the effect of the existing proposals upon our textile trade. If he wants our textile trade to he protected then it is reasonable to suppose that there might be other trades, which he did not care to mention, which might also like to retain their present protection. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we ought to make the pound harder to get. I should like to know how lowering tariffs would affect that suggestion.
He said he would like to have taken advantage of this opportunity to tie up the existing sterling balances more tightly. Surely he will appreciate that it is not much good concerning oneself unduly about the £200 million or so of the sterling balances due to the members in this Union when the total sterling balances are running at over £3,000 million: it is not a point worth bothering about.
I should like to deal next with the right hon. Gentleman's point that these proposals seem to have been made for the advantage of debtor nations, though, in fact, we look like being a substantial creditor country. First of all, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to Command Paper 7928 in which our position with regard to O.E.E.C. countries is set out. As the right hon. Gentleman said, in 1948 we ran a surplus of 100 million sterling or 300 million dollars, but if he looks at the provisional figures for 1949–50 he will find that there is an expected deficit of 20 million sterling or 60 million dollars. So that even when we take into account the possible effect of countries outside the scheme drawing on their sterling balances it is still by no means certain that we should be substantially a creditor nation.
Now I should like to turn to consider for a moment what is, in fact, the maximum amount of credit which we could be called upon under this scheme to provide. There is. first of all, the notional


figure of 150 million units or dollars, which will be covered by payments from E.C.A. In passing, I should like the Minister, when he replies to the Debate, to say how this allocation will be dealt with. I can visualise a possible situation where, in the first period, we may be a creditor, say, to the extent of 50 million dollars, in which case I gather that we should receive a payment of 50 million from E.C.A. and our credit of 50 million would be written off against this notional deficit of 50 million in the books of account. Suppose that in the next period we ran into a real deficit position, would we be called upon to repay the dollars which we had got from E.C.A. in the previous period to cover our credit position, or is that a payment which, once made, is forgotten forever, whether we go up or down in relation to our credit position? Anyway, it is clear that the first 150 million is taken care of by the special arrangement whereby E.C.A. backs any line of credit we have to advance.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It has nothing to do with E.C.A.

Mr. Adams: On the contrary, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads the White Paper he will find that E.C.A. is the organisation which will be responsible for making available dollars to cover any credits that we have to grant up to the first 150 million.
We then come to the first line of credit of 212 million we have to provide out of the quota 1,060 million units or dollars. There we are called upon to make a loan of 212 million. Thereafter we have pari passu arrangements of credit and gold, which means that in the remainder we could be called upon to give a further line of 424 million dollars credit, and we should receive 424 million in gold, so that the total free credit that we should be called upon to provide under this scheme would, in fact, amount to 636 million units or dollars.
How does that compare with our total trade commitments? It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot said, that in 1948 we did in fact, run a credit of 300 million dollars with O.E.E.C. countries. Our total trade, including our visible and invisible exports and imports, I estimate, balances out roughly at 7,500 million dollars a year.

So if we take the year 1948 as an example, and a line of 300 million dollars credit is required through entering into this Payments Union, we should, in fact, be financing our trade on credit in this way to the extent of only 4 per cent. of the total annual turnover.
I say that, to assist the liberalisation of trade in Europe, it is a reasonable proposition that we should be prepared, in the extreme, to provide credit to the extent of only 4 per cent. of our total trade throughout the world. I have no objection to make to that at all, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, that we are making a really practical effort here to help Europe. We are not entering into, perhaps, a rather more high sounding scheme like the Schuman Plan, but our representatives have got down to brass tacks, and they have worked out a practical way of making a beginning upon the liberalisation of trade in Europe.
I think that we all ought to wish this venture good luck, and that we ought to watch its operations in the course of the next year or two with the hope that, if it does provide a means of encouraging multilateral trade and of opening up trade between member countries, we should be ready to go forward with the next logical step of trying to get agreement to extend it to the whole free world. If we can get to that stage then I can foresee that the next logical step would be the incorporation of the International Monetary Fund and Bank into the operation of this world organisation. We could then approach the stage where we could have what would be the equivalent in normal commercial banking of current and deposit accounts. Members would be required to maintain in their current accounts sufficient funds to operate current trading. Then, countries which were running lines of credits would, in fact, have deposit accounts upon which they would be paid a reasonable amount of interest, and those funds would be available to cover overdrafts by those debtor nations who would, for the most part, be in the backward areas.
Without taking up much more time of the Committee, I would say that I would like to see if this can be applied to the whole world in due course. We should be taking surpluses from the creditor nations like the United States and making them available to the United Nations


through this financial organisation, so that they could be applied fairly and evenly to the more backward areas that had the need of credit to make the imports which they badly needed to improve the standard of living in those areas. So, I personally view this as only a beginning within the confines of O.E.E.C. We can only hope it will succeed, so that in due course we can apply it in the wider sphere in the way I have indicated.

8.7 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I have listened with great interest to the two speeches from the other side of the Committee. I am sorry that the author of one of them is departing because he and the hon. Member for Wandsworth. Central (Mr. R. Adams) rather led me to understand the subject for a moment. I have come here partly to speak, partly to ask questions, and to try to find out what it is all about. The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central, said that we must look to a time when we shall get lines of credit and that we are getting down to elementary things. In 1937, or even prior to the days of Dr. Schacht, we were able to do things without any International Monetary Fund, without lines of credit, without E.C.A. or E.P.U. and all the rest of it. I hope we shall be able to go backwards still more and a little more rapidly. The hon. Gentleman said that E.C.A. had a line of credit with E.P.U. I do not know what it means. I look at page 18 of the White Paper—

Mr. Adams: I really think the hon. Gentleman should have had a word with me or with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland), in the Library before the Debate, and then he would perhaps have proceeded to talk with some intelligence on the subject.

Sir H. Williams: That seems rather sad to me. I have been reading this White Paper. It is one of the worst documents ever presented to this House. It is a very badly-written document.

Mr. Messer: It is a clever document.

Sir H. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who has benefited by going to the Library would consider the document, and, in particular, page 18. Perhaps he could tell us what it means. I do not know what it means. It says:

The initial debt position of the Belgium-Luxemburg Economic Union shall he considered as falling within"—
then there come some more initials that look like the French for blue—"B.L.E.U." I do not know what it means. It goes on:
quota of 360, so that that quota shall be financed as follows: Initial debt position"—
It is incredible. It says "Initial debit position," "Gold free tranche of credit"—whatever that is—"72." It says "Gold pari 288 minus x over 2. Credit passu 288 minus x over 2." If anybody can tell me what that means I shall be delighted.

Mr. Adams: If the hon. Gentleman bears in mind that the letter x refers to what is at present the unknown debit position of B.L.E.U., he will be able to make it out satisfactorily himself.

Sir H. Williams: I once took a degree so I know all about x. What I do not understand is "pari 288 minus x over 2" I know what x means. What does "pari" mean?

Mr. Henry Strauss: May I suggest the explanation? I was puzzled by the same passage. I think it is what Beachcomber describes as a "printer's frolic." If one takes the words "pari" and "passu" away from the formulae to which they are at the moment attached and puts the words together opposite the middle of the bracket on the left-hand side the whole paragraph will make comparative sense.

Sir H. Williams: I am glad to have had a little more assistance from South Norwich than I have so far had from Central Wandsworth or South Gloucestershire. This document really is a scandalous document.

Mr. Adams: Nonsense.

Sir H. Williams: I am saying so, and the responsibility for saying so is mine. I have tried to read it twice and have found it very difficult to understand. I think it is the duty of Ministers and other people concerned to present to Parliament documents which can be understood by the ordinary Member, and which can be understood by the ordinary person who takes the trouble to read them. I say that from that test, this document is a scandal—and let us say it. I am perfectly certain that the hon. Member for


Wandsworth, Central, does not really understand it. He has made a glib speech saying that it is a good idea—

Mr. Adams: I invite the hon. Gentleman to ask me any question.

Sir H. Williams: Certainly. I will ask one or two. He has not even explained what "pari" and "passu" mean up to now.

Mr. Adams: Your hon. and learned Friend just explained.

Sir H. Williams: I am not quite certain, but I think this document was written by a North Korean, translated by a Japanese into Arabic and re-translated into Urdu on a French ship.
As far as I can make out, it is some kind of attempt to return to a gold standard. I think so, because gold comes into it very much. Balances can be settled by gold. Obviously, nobody has ever been more conscious of gold than they are now, when apparently we are not on a gold standard. The strange thing is that we are trying to play the game of the gold standard without the rules of the gold standard. The rules are a bit harsh and rough. In the old days, if we found we were over-trading, spending more than we could afford, the Bank of England, observing the export of gold, raised the rate of discount, and if that was not enough they went through certain open market operations designed to restrict credit because the export of gold was an indication of over-trading, and sometimes it had rather harsh results, as we know.

Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall 1929, when during the boom in America investors tried to invest so much British currency in America that it set up a very great dollar problem at that time, and helped to bring about the crisis which followed that boom.

Sir H. Williams: I do not think that was quite the cause. The United States people, being less stable than we were, went in for the biggest gamble the world had ever known. At the time I was in New York City; I went to the gallery which overlooks Wall Street, and I was told by the bell boys that Wall Street was gambling itself into disaster.

Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps I did not make the point clear.

Sir H. Williams: No.

Mr. Woodburn: When British investors send a cheque to Wall Street and it cannot be backed up by goods in normal trading it raises a problem of paying that cheque either by gold or by some other method. When all these investments went from this country to America it was a physical problem which we were quite unable to solve, and contributed greatly to the disaster which overtook the world at that time.

Sir H. Williams: As far as I can understand the right hon. Gentleman—I must not call him my right hon. Friend, although we are very old friends—he is rather hinting that the American disaster was brought about by the fact that we, the people of this country, invested too much in the United States. Well, there have been many explanations of that disaster, and I always thought the primary cause of the American disaster was the excessive gambling of the people of the United States in which the whole community was involved; they bid up common shares until they were only yielding 1 per cent. It was the most awful gamble ever known, which precipitated the most awful disaster in 1929. I know it is the habit of the party opposite to look forward and never to the past—

Mr. Keenan: Not to 1066.

Sir H. Williams: —"and all that." It seems to me that what the Government are trying to do is to play soccer according to the rules of billiards. There are well-established rules for playing the game of the gold standard. The other thing is to say, "All right, we will go on by having no export and import restrictions, no exchange controls"—except that I know my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) wants to keep a tight hand on what are called the sterling balances; somehow or another they have to be funded, or tied up. But leaving them out of account, that is a policy, and then the rate at which our currency will exchange for the currency of other people will solve all the problems; everything will look after itself. Now there are two philosophies. One can have the gold


standard with its regulations; or one can have an inconvertible currency and let it find its own value in terms of all the other currencies in the world. Both will work.
If hon. Members have a little time to spare they might go to the Library and read a most interesting speech made in the House of Commons on 18th August, 1919, by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, who surveyed the economic situation which then prevailed. At that time there was a condition of what we call full employment. This speech curiously describes many things which exist today, and he announced that from the following morning the sustaining of the exchange value of the £ in relation to the dollar was to be abolished and we did that unilaterally on 19th August, 1919. In five or six months the whole of our adverse balance of trade had been completely wiped out. There is one system working.
Then we go to 21st September, 1931, in conditions of almost the highest unemployment ever known, due largely to the policy of the party opposite, assisted by the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). We had then vast unemployment, and circumstances forced Mr. Philip Snowden the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abandon the gold standard. Again the £ had to find its own level. A great many things happened, but within a moderate period of time the exchange situation had rectified itself and there was no problem of hard or soft currency. I therefore think it is worth while considering simpler methods than this present most elaborate method. Think of all these poor people sitting round with wet towels on their heads trying to think out what all these things in this document mean.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Adams indicated dissent.

Sir H. Williams: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head. He cannot explain to me what "pari passu" means so I shall not take him as my guide, philosopher and friend. When we look at page 6, I suppose everybody in the Committee knows what this means:
Each member of E.P.U. shall have a quota within which such surpluses and deficits as may arise among them shall be settled by gold payments, as provided in paragraphs 28 and 29 below.

Then I start reading down to those paragraphs, but before I get to them I find this:
Special temporary arrangements as set out in Annex 1 will be made for dealing with those members who are declared by E.C.A. to be structural debtors or creditors.
I do not know what a structural debtor or creditor is. I expect the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central, has found that in the Library, too. I know what a structure is, and I know what structural steel is, but I do not know what a structural debtor or creditor is. He is not defined in this document. Then I turn to Annex 1, and I do not find a solitary word in Annex 1 about structural debtors or creditors. That is why I complain that this is a badly written document.

Mr. Adams: Look at page 16.

Sir H. Williams: That is:
Effect of initial positions on automatic financial arrangements prior to liquidation.
Is that what the hon. Gentleman is referring to? There is nothing there about structural things. There are "Initial Credit Positions," which means that one is not broke, and "Initial Debit Positions"—we are in that lot; we are 150 millions of units broke according to this document, if it means anything. I wish I could have a little more information from Wandsworth; I know the district very well.

Mr. Adams: At the risk of taking up more time, might I try to explain it very simply to the hon. Gentleman, although I know it is very difficult to explain anything to him. Surely he will appreciate that in drawing up the structure of E.P.U. it was necessary to declare some nations debtor countries and others creditor countries. That is what is meant by structural debtor and creditor nations.

Sir H. Williams: I still do not understand. We know that some people are in debt and that some are in credit. I want to know when we are structurally broke and when we are structurally not broke. What the Socialists have been engaged in for a good many years has been an unsuccessful battle against what the old economists used to call the law of supply and demand. They are failing in that battle. All this unbalance throughout the world is caused because we are trying


to evade the unpleasantness involved in the law of supply and demand. So long as we go on trying by planning to avoid this, we shall have to bring in document after document like the one now before the Committee, and still we shall remain in difficulties.
I am a firm believer in having a system of protective and preferential tariffs, because they do not interfere with the freedom a trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was brought up as a free trader, and I have no doubt that he devoted himself very much to the study of the result of import duties, preferential duties. It is no good his shaking his head and looking superior, because that does not impress me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor anyone else."] I am glad to have that confirmation. If we impose a tariff, it creates a tendency not to buy that thing which we are trying to exploit by means of a protective duty. It is no good running to the Board of Trade and asking for an import licence. If I want to buy a duty article in a free economy, I am entitled to buy it without asking the permission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anyone else. That is why I say that free trade and freedom of trade are fundamentally two different things.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes in this document—the Chancellor of the Exchequer always goes out when I am talking; that is why we make so little progress—this document professes to support liberalisation of trade. Liberalisation of trade, so far as it is pursued in this document, is not opposed to protective tariffs. It is designed to do without an import licence, an export licence, or exchange control; that apparently is its purpose. But what a complicated method of doing so. It could be done much easier by methods which in the past have succeeded, and I make the plea that if we are going to do a job like this, let us do a good clean job, instead of having a terribly complicated document like this, which I assert neither of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the other side understand, although they think they do, and none of the others have tried to understand. I think that it is a scandal that a document of this character should be presented to the House of Commons.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: This Debate has been useful because it has shed bright light on Conservative financial policy. It is not only the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) who wants to get back to what he believes to be the immutable, unchallengeable rules of the gold standard. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) wanted what he called, plainly, convertible sterling. It has come out that the party opposite want to get back to the kind of currency we had when I was a boy. They want to put an English sovereign in their pocket and go to France and spend it on red wine at 4d. for a good-sized bottle and good quality stuff. They want to get back to that kind of currency. I do not, because I happen to have been brought up in that era when a few people were extremely well off, but the people who, for example, live in my constituency and who put me in this House were very badly off.
The right hon. Member for Aldershot said quite plainly that what he wanted was to make sterling scarce. I shall tell my constituents at the next General Election, "Put the Tories in, and they will make sterling scarce; if you do not vote for me, you will find that money is scarce." What the right hon. Member for Aldershot overlooks is contained in the phrase the hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) used, "It depends in what part of the world sterling is going to be scarce."
My experience during the 60 years I have been alive is that when sterling is made scarce overseas, as the right hon. Member for Aldershot wants, sterling is also scarce in the back streets of English industrial towns. I represent a large English industrial constituency. I was put into Parliament by the people of the back streets, who voted for me, and so long as I am in politics I shall oppose any policies and any parties that seek to make money scarce.

Sir H. Williams: Is this document designed to make sterling scarce overseas or the reverse, because I have been trying to find out?

Mr. Smith: I am not going to allow the hon. Member for Croydon, East, to get out of the hole in which he has put


himself and his party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have been told on good authority by friends of mine connected with the medical profession that there are people who are so fond of alcoholic liquor, and get so much satisfaction out of the effects of it, that they are quite unable to resist the temptation to carry the consumption of alcoholic liquor to excess. I am told that that is so. In 60 years I have noticed quite a number of people—some of my friends among them—who have been that sort of people. The Tory Party is exactly like that. They crave for the gold standard and scarce money in exactly the same way that alcoholic addicts crave for the bottle.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) complained of this European Payments agreement because it did not make sterling scarce enough. He said, "We want sterling to be scarce." That is what the Cunliffe Committee said in 1918. That is what Mr. Montagu Norman decided in 1919. The hon. Member for Croydon, East referred to Mr. Lloyd George speaking in this House in 1919, and taking up a certain position. Actually, the hon. Member is wrong. It was Mr.—as he was then—Austen Chamberlain who made the fatal announcement—

Sir H. Williams: No.

Mr. Smith: —who read the Cabinet minute which determined that sterling should no longer be abundant as it had been during and immediately following the first war, that it should be made scarce; and within 12 months the number of unemployed had risen from about half a million to just on two million. That is the effect of scarce money on the people of this country.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Member has confused two issues. Following on the report of the Cunliffe Committee, we decided by stages to return to the gold standard. That process was continued by all political parties until April, 1935. What I was referring to was the speech made by the then Prime Minister on 18th August, 1919, in the course of which he said, "From tomorrow morning the pound will be permitted to find its own level in terms of the dollar." The hon. Member has mixed two things. It does not surprise me, in view of the 4d. bottle of wine of which he spoke.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member introduced this topic of going back to the gold standard. I have not been to the Library, as no doubt he has, but I am sticking to this point, that the policy of the Conservative Party has emerged as making money scarce. He is quite right on one thing, and in view of what has happened since and in view of the nature of this Payments Union—what it is and what it could have been—it is necessary that we should concentrate on it. The hon. Member for Croydon, East, is quite right in saying that the policy of making sterling scarce and getting back to the gold standard, which he and the right hon. Member for Aldershot want, was agreed by all parties in that epoch. Perfectly true. The difference is that my party has learnt from experience; his party has not.
We have learned from experience that, if we deliberately embark on a policy of making sterling scarce overseas, then it becomes scarce in the back streets of our industrial towns and we have trade depression and unemployment for lack of purchasing power. That policy was preached by the Cunliffe Committee in 1918. It was practised by the Coalition Government in 1919. It was consummated by the present Leader of the Opposition in 1925 when, with his gold standard Budget, he precipitated two coal stoppages and a general strike in 12 months.

Mr. G. Beresford Craddock: Mr. G. Beresford Craddock (Spelthorne) rose—

Mr. Smith: I will give way in a minute. The result was that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, being, among other things, an essentially honest man, got up in the House—I was in the Press Gallery at the time—seven years later and admitted that, in being guided by the financial experts in 1925 and going back to gold, which hon. Members opposite want to do, he had been wrong. I commend that speech of April, 1932, by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) to both sides of the Committee.

Mr. G. B. Craddock: Am I not right in assuming that one of the supporters and advisers of my right hon. Friend at that time, in 1925 to 1926, was the late Mr. Philip Snowden?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. Mr. Philip Snowden supported the return to the gold standard, but my party has since learned sense, and the proof that my party has learned sense is that this Payments Union, as a result of negotiations which went on for such a long time, is not what it might have been, not what those American advisers, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) referred, would have liked it to be. It is what it is because, happily for this country and particularly for the people in the back streets who sent us here, my right hon. and learned Friend is not Mr. Philip Snowden.

Mr. Craddock: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this document is really a return to the gold standard in another name?

Mr. Smith: It was not a return to the gold standard in another name, because we have never been divorced from gold. Gold has always functioned in payments, even during the war. There have been gold settlements in international transactions ever since I was born, in 1890. It is precisely because we have not got away from gold that the world has to endure so many misfortunes.
I referred just now to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, said about American advisers. They have, to some extent, modified their point of view, and there is one interesting thing about this Payments Union agreement that even the attitude of the American experts concerned is vastly different from their attitude in 1945, when I first came to this House as a Member, and this House was invited at a week's notice to implement an agreement which meant going back to free trade, nondiscrimination, gold standard, and all the apparatus of 19th century Victorian capitalism. I was relieved no end when I learned the terms of this agreement. I felt grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, with whose policies I have not always agreed in the last few years, because the agreement could have been so much worse than it really is.
I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to one other aspect of Conservative policy which has emerged in this Debate. The hon. Member for Barnet said that he welcomed international competition and the liberalisation of

trade. If my geography is right, Barnet is in Hertfordshire, and I hope he will tell that to the market gardeners of Hertfordshire, because the right hon. Member for Aldershot referred to the possibility of competition from Continental textiles. I should like to know whether the Conservative Party really do want the liberalisation of trade or not. I wish that they would make it clear.
I welcome the agreement, although not because I like it for its intrinsic qualities. So long as money is based directly or indirectly on gold, so long as money has to perform the two functions of medium of exchange and of wealth which can be stored, we shall always be in difficulty about payments—of course we shall—so long as we have a money which is supposed to be intrinsically valuable. What we ought to have is a very different system of money, but that is outside the scope of tonight's Debate.
The whole thing could have been very much worse. This Debate has shown that my right hon. and learned Friend and we on this side have learned, but that the Tory Party still have their minds back in the reign of Queen Victoria.

8.37 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Judging by what has been said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith), the only thing about which hon. Members opposite have not learned is the subject of the Debate. I have never before heard so much irrelevance.
The Debate is concerned with two very simple questions. Does this measure which has been proposed help us to achieve what what must have been the object of His Majesty's Government and would be the object of any Government; to see that, as a result of the war and all the strains and stresses that have been placed upon our currency, sterling is now coming back to be a currency that can be convertible at will and, above all, a currency which any nation throughout the world will be willing to accept, as a medium in which it can either fulfil its own trade or use as a reserve for its own currency and also be certain that it can use it at any future time that it likes. That was the task with which the Government were faced and with which any other Government would have been faced. Unless it was fulfilled, then I think it fair to


say that the Government must accept that they have failed. We should look at the conditions of E.P.U. in that light and in that light only, and not go back into the past or make nice arguments which may or may not be relevant.
What are the conditions of E.P.U.? First, the whole of the sterling area is now amalgamated within the European Payments Union, and the two are now to become one, and the liabilities, the things that may be charged to one, will now be able to be charged within both. We are accepting a very grave extra liability in saying that all the liabilities we have acknowledged and allowed to the members of the sterling area are now to be equally acknowledged and allowed to the members of the European Payments Union. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that we are saying we are to start at a handicap. We are to accept that since in the past we have been in Europe a creditor nation, therefore, 150 million dollar units of trade are to be debited against us before, within this union or club, we are to be allowed to earn anything at all. It is a sort of entrance fee that we have to pay.
At the same time we are saying that we are going to release £200 million of sterling balances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, as far as the sterling balances that we release involve a gold payment, such would be made up to us by E.C.A. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows that there is nothing in the European Payments Agreement to say that this bargain has been struck between His Majesty's Government and E.C.A. I hope he will tell us what bargain has been struck and under what heading, and that he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the terms of that bargain. I think it is deplorable that when we get an agreement of this nature and this complexity, the Chancellor should come to the House, as he did on Tuesday, and say that E.C.A. are going to make up the gold payments, when he knows that such a condition is not within the terms of the agreement, but is something outside it.
Again, the Chancellor said yesterday, in answer to Questions, that this £200 million would not be drawn down very quickly, and that we need not worry on this liability. But what he did Plot tell the House was that the £200 million is to

be liquidated within two years and, unless it is, E.C.A. will automatically take action to see that it is. Here is a case where I suggest that if there was a little more honesty on the part of the Treasury in answering Questions, it would be far easier for hon. Members on this side of the Committee, if not for hon. Members opposite, to make an honest appreciation of the problems with which they are presented.
I think that most hon. Members will agree that the vital question in this European Payments Agreement is what is to be the result upon our home industries of the open licences which are to be granted. We are now told that, whereas in the past protection from European competition has been given to a great number of our industries, that is now to cease, and it is obvious that this is of the greatest importance, for instance, to horticulture. If we are again, for instance, under open licences, to have inroads on the horticultural industry, such industries, built up at great expense and effort, are to find themselves blasted out of existence as a result.
I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday what was the total of imports he expected to come in during the present year and in the first quarter of next year as a result of these open licences. I put the two questions because, under the terms of E.P.U. whatever the effect this year, a far greater volume of trade has to be liberalised in the first quarter of next year. The Chancellor simply replied that he did not know and was not prepared or able to make any statement. If we are to believe that as being a true statement by His Majesty's Government, we can only come to this simple conclusion that His Majesty's Government have gone blindfolded into this and have signed a cheque for instituting open licences without any knowledge whatsoever of what it is going to mean to British industry, and particularly to British agriculture. That is what they have said and they seem quite impervious to it and merely say, "This is something we have done and no doubt it will turn out for the best."
I have mentioned horticulture, but what about other things? We have had great difficulties in the last six months, for instance, in the textile industry in regard to produce labelled "Hong Kong" but


which in fact comes from outside the sterling area. These open licences will make that infiltration even more possible and something which will be of even greater danger to our own textile merchants. Take Bizonia—the heavy industries there, by this method of open licences, are going to increase troubles to ourselves.
I ask another question. Apparently we have accepted this position that we start with a handicap of 150 million units as something due to the overall creditor position which we enjoyed in the past. If that is so, why have we allowed Belgium to get away with the favourable terms that she has received? Belgium is in a far better position than we are but she has not had to face up to the position. Belgium has a much more easy and, if one may say so, disproportionate entrance fee. I fully realise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to go to Paris and make the best bargain he could and live down the background against which he went, but is it reasonable for this country to accept a 150 million units entrance fee when Belgium is let in so easily? That does not seem to be just or reasonable.
Up to the present we have, through licensing control and import licences, been able to prevent losses of gold and dollars to ourselves by seeing that our trade with any European country was so regulated that we spent only what we could afford. Now there is to be a very different position. It will now be possible, once the sterling area and the European Payments Union become one, for the whole transferable sterling balances to be used for purposes within the whole of the European Payments Union area; that is, that the whole of what my right hon. Friend has said is the equivalent of £2,000 million may be used, if the countries so desire, for the purpose of buying goods within the European Payments Union.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman will say that that is all right. that we have agreements and that we are quite certain that no one will break the club rules. That may be so, but it seems to me extremely difficult for anyone to come to this Committee tonight and say that in our present position, however much it may have improved in the last few months, we are now willing to take the

risk of accepting a further £2,000 million being available for use to our disadvantage, with the only safeguard that we believe that the other members will keep to the rules.

Mr. R. Adams: Surely the hon. and gallant Member appreciates that under the quota imposed, the limit, as I explained in my speech, is 636 million dollars.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am not at all clear what the hon. Member is referring to, in relation to the point that I was making. If he means the subscription or the amount we have to put down in the guarantee, I agree, but if he means the amount of the extent of which we are liable, I do not agree. I am not certain to which of the three things he was referring.
Let us remember, as an hon. Member on this side of the Committee has said, that it was only yesterday it was announced that the Australians are already buying in the Belgian area more than they have done in the past. Let us remember also that we are in a very difficult situation in relation to foreign policy and it may well be that the Australians will want to spend money for their own defence. If they do, they will naturally look to their ready reserves, which are sterling balances. Again, it may be that they will wish to increase their stockpiles of raw materials. In that case they will look to their sterling balances and expect them to be honoured. The right hon. Gentleman may say that he is quite certain that these transferable balances are blocked for the moment, but they are certainly not blocked for any use in case of emergency, and the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to say that they should not be. Yet so far as they are not blocked they are a liability which we may have to meet under the European Payments Union.
This agreement is as great a gamble as that taken by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced convertibility. The Chancellor may smile, but he should remember how often he smiled from those benches when he said that devaluation would not take place. But it did take place. While we all want to see sterling move along the lines to which I have referred, there can be nothing worse for it than to enter into a gamble which is not estimated and the extent of


which is not known by the Treasury, and which may well lead us into the position which we faced before of accepting something in good faith and then having to repudiate it because it does not in the least work out as we expected.
In view of these unknown quantities, which the Chancellor says he does not know, we shall be very foolish, before we know more, to go ahead full tilt in the belief that the thing will work. I agree that in a short Debate such as this much must be left unsaid, and much which might convince people cannot be explained. I hope by the time we come to consider the legislation which we know is necessary, we shall have a very full statement which would justify us taking this additional risk with the certainty that we shall achieve what we all want to see achieved, namely, the value of sterling and the stability of sterling increased.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles: The agreement embodied in this document fulfils very well its limited objective. If all that it was wise to do in place of the old intra-European payment scheme was to give central banks multilateral facilities to set off their balances, we should have to congratulate our negotiators on having done a very good job, and there would be very little more to say.
There is no doubt that the ingenuity and skill which must have been required to deal with the points fairly raised by all the different parties to the negotiations must have been very great indeed; and anyone who has had any experience of the texts of payments agreements would not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), that this is a particularly had one. In my bumble opinion, it is rather a good one. I think that the result is as good as it is largely because the early stiffness of His Majesty's Government disappeared as it was found that sterling was in a better position following devaluation; some, at least, of the defensive attitude of the Government gave place to more confidence, and the introduction of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, with his more flexible mind, did a very great deal of good.
Keeping in mind the narrow objective to which the agreement is addressed, I have one or two questions to put. We are

very glad that there is to be a liberalisation of invisible payments, and I would ask the Minister to tell the Committee something about the effect of the liberalisation of invisibles upon the United Kingdom, which might be very great. Then I wish to enter a protest against using the Civil Contingencies Fund to put up these large sums of money, I suppose the £53½ million of the initial subscription, and maybe some of our credit as well. I consider that we ought not to use this fund for this purpose and that, instead, we should have had legislation introduced into this House.
I do not like the provisions relating to the winding-up of the agreement. It is a very short agreement. It is only for two years, and if the Committee will look at paragraph 79 they will see that there is to be
an overall review of the scheme not later than 31st March, 1952. At that time, the Organisation, in consultation with E.C.A., shall decide on what conditions the financial commitments of the Members shall be extended, in the light of the circumstances then prevailing.
Many members of the union will wish to know well in advance what is to happen to their debits and their credits after June, 1952. Otherwise, we shall find that this agreement will only work smoothly for a few months and then everyone will have an eye on the final date and will be wondering on what terms any debit he may then have will be liquidated. The rules for liquidation provide a very short period of only two years and some of the structural debtors—which, of course, means the countries whose debit balances arise from the unbalance in the structure of their production, due to the war—are, I think, entitled to know at the earliest possible date what will happen to their debits after 1952. I ask the Government to undertake this review, and to give more clear and early information about what will happen in so short a time from now.
My real criticism of this agreement is that its object is too limited and that, in some respects, the limitations are due to the nationalist policy of His Majesty's Government. We have to regard a Payments Union as something more than a theoretical exercise to discover a neat machinery by which central banks can compensate their balances. We have to look at it in relation to time and place and to the particular problems which are dominant at that time and in that place. Here


we are, five years from the end of the war, and the area concerned is Western Europe and the sterling area combined. We are very glad that the sterling area has been brought in. I suppose the chief problems are the dollar gap, the maintenance of employment, and the mobilisation of resources to meet Communist aggression. On all these problems, convertibility has a very great influence, and, by all those tests, the agreement is inadequate.
Take first the question of the dollar gap. Here, the object of loosening trade and payments must be to increase the productivity of European capital and labour. If it does not do that, then, of course, out of the same volume of production, more goods will be exchanged between the different European countries and there will be less to export overseas. So that liberalisation might very easily—especially in the short run—make it more difficult to close the dollar gap than it was before. I have doubts about this liberalisation as it is provided for in the Agreement. Unless there is an international capital market, so that capital can flow to expand the industries which greater competition show to be the ones which will survive, then I do not see how greater productivity in Europe can come about as a result of greater liberalisation of current trade.
There is no international capital market today. There are, therefore, not the same continuous automatic adjustments in the structure of industry which are demanded if the most efficient firms in the most suitable places are to expand their output, make their goods cheaper and thus enable Europe as a whole to earn more dollars. That is a serious defect in this agreement and unless it is buttressed by other agreements which will lead to greater productivity in Europe, then all that may happen is that a larger proportion of European output will be consumed within the area and less will go to the hard currency markets.
Then there is the question of employment. Here, the Payments Union is a grievous disappointment. Obviously, a system of this kind can only work if the net credits and debits are kept within reasonable bounds. The gold reserves in Europe are not big enough to cope with very large disequilibria between different countries. Another way of dealing

with such large balances would be to allow exchange rates to fluctuate. That would bring about a correction, but that method is ruled out on good grounds—first, because of the instability which fluctuating exchange rates bring in trade; and, secondly, because it would set up cross-rates between the dollar and different European currencies, which would be a serious factor for sterling. That being so, it is clear that some other provisions must be made to keep the balances within reasonable bounds. If not, it is certain that the pressure on a country which is running up a deficit and coming to the end of its line of credit will be to deflate, and that will bring unemployment.
People who have thought about this convertibility scheme over the last year have agreed that the only answer to this problem would be to include in the payments union, as an integral part of the machinery, provisions for recommendations and action to co-ordinate credit policies between the member countries, so that their internal financial systems should not get out of step one with the other. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith), was quite right when he said that too scarce sterling produced unemployment, and if any of the currencies within the Union become too scarce they will bring unemployment. It is of the greatest importance that we should not live in the past, as the hon. Member suggested in referring to the inter-war years, but that we should apply modern knowledge to see that all currencies within a payments system of this kind are managed so as to provide an effective monetary basis for a high and stable level of employment.
The Economic Committee of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe published its report on European monetary reform last December, and this is what we said in paragraph 11:
An integral part of any plan of extra-convertibility is the co-ordination by Governments of the various aspects of financial policy which affect inflationary or deflationary tendencies in their economies.
Then, we went on to say, in the next paragraph:
We give our unanimous support to the policy of full employment. We are convinced that, possibly before and certainly after, the end of E.R.P. funds, it will be impossible for any one of the O.E.E.C. countries to maintain full employment by isolating its economy and


pursuing a credit policy at variance with its neighbours. We believe that co-operation offers the best chance to maintain the volume of work and real wages in all the member States.
In February of this year. the O.E.E.C., in its second annual report, confirmed what we had said in the preceding December. In paragraph 754, it stated:
"Any organisation set up to supervise these new payments arrangements must have not only the right but the positive duty to consult continuously with members on their relative economic and financial policies and to use the privileges and facilities of the system to promote the underlying conditions indispensable to full transferability."
The Committee will therefore see that O.E.E.C. was calling for the same things as were referred to by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland), that is to say, for variations in credits and in the amount of gold which a country must pay or receive according to whether it was behaving well or badly—a deliberate managerial system, which should not only recommend but take action within the limits of the system to keep full employment on an even keel.
What happened when the document was being negotiated? It is an open secret that His Majesty's Government led the opposition to the inclusion in this payments union of any such machinery for consultation and action. The British negotiators were instructed to get as automatic a machinery as they could, with as little power in it to take action, in order to moderate in one direction or another the internal financial policies of the members.
If, therefore, the Committee will look at paragraph 58, they will see what has happened to these recommendations for co-ordination of policy. It says:
The Organisation shall keep under review the economic and financial situation of members, with a view to making such recommendations as it may from time to time think appropriate to enable all members to play their full part in the attainment of the objectives and the satisfaction of the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 to 12 above.
If we look back to paragraphs 2 to 12, we find, in paragraph 11, the sentence:
The internal financial equilibrium of the participating countries is an absolute condition precedent to its success.
Those are the old words from the original O.E.E.C. document, and those who sponsored them in the first document must have insisted that they should be kept

in the final edition. But gone are the powers for bringing that co-ordination about, and I particularly want to ask the Minister to tell the Committee what the Government intend to do under paragraph 58. Do they intend to co-operate with other European countries before deflation or inflation in any member State has got out of hand? Do they really intend to make a common monetary policy in Europe, or is it just one more of the proofs, of which we have had so many, that the moment the European countries want to do something in unison which touches in the slightest the complete mastery of His Majesty's Government over our own economy they draw back and say, "There, we will not follow you."
The right hon. Gentleman made a speech the other day at Geneva, in the report of which I was much interested, in which he said that the Government would be prepared to enter into consultations for the dovetailing of investment programmes. But this is much more important. Is he prepared, not only to enter into negotiations, but to take joint action to maintain a common level of a monetary demand in the area? Without that I think that both the Strasbourg Committee and the O.E.E.C. report of February will be found to be correct in saying that the system will not work for very long.
I now come to the third question, which is really the effect of the payments agreement on the "cold" war. Exchange control, which lies behind all these agreements, is one of the most powerful controls for destroying personal liberty. If there is to be a clear conception in the minds of Europeans of the difference of life on our side of the Iron Curtain and life on the other side, I can imagine nothing that would make that more evident than the right of an ordinary citizen to do what he wants, at any rate, with a fair proportion of his money, across frontiers. Exchange control pins a man down and curtails his freedom.
I well remember during the Second Reading Debate of the Exchange Control Bill five years ago—I opened for this side—recalling to hon. Members that a few days before the Foreign Secretary—who, we are glad to see, is getting better—had said that he looked forward to the day when a man could go to Victoria Station and buy a ticket and go anywhere


without a passport. I asked what was the good of that if there was exchange control which prevented the man from having any money. This form of control is one of the most serious handicaps to liberty, and a very powerful agency of the totalitarian State.
What, then, would we expect of an agreement like this? We should expect that it would lead to some dismantling of exchange control over persons, but, of course, it does nothing of the kind. All that it does is to give greater facilities to central banks and Governments to exchange, once a month, the net balances in their hands, each Chancellor of the Exchequer retaining the same old powers to determine how much foreign exchange shall have got into the hands of any individual in his country.
In my judgment, this is a matter of great importance in getting Western Europe to feel that the free way of life is really better than the life on the other side of the Iron Curtain. I expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman, like me, listens occasionally to a programme called "Educating Archie." If he did so, on Sunday, he will have heard Archie being given a lesson about the French Revolution. There was the Scarlet Pimpernel trying to bribe Robespierre to let off two aristocrats from the guillotine. The Scarlet Pimpernel said to Robespierre, speaking in terms of his own currency, "You can have 10 million francs." Robespierre said, "No, nothing doing." The Scarlet Pimpernel said "Twenty million francs," and Robespierre said "No." Then the hero paused and said, "What about a dollar?" the two aristocrats were let off, there and then, to go home.
There is a great deal of truth in the fact that if people can get a little something in the money that they want, it has an enormous effect on their sense of "Where I live, things are free," and we ought to test any new payments agreement by the degree to which it makes possible the dismantling of exchange control. I do not take the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East, whom I understood to say that we should sweep the whole of exchange control away today. I think that would be impossible; but we should show we intend to move in that direction if we want to have a growing

sense of confidence in freedom on our side of the Iron Curtain.
What could the Government have done which would have enabled them, at this date in 1950, to present us with a payments agreement that would have permitted exchange control to be dismantled to a considerable degree, and would have allayed all the fears from this side of the Committee that one of the dangers of the arrangement might be that sterling would be too plentiful? It is true that, following the war, sterling was put to a strain it had not been under before, largely owing to the great accumulation of balances in this country. It is also true that, until those balances had been dealt with, and until His Majesty's Government was quite sure what the monetary policies of the sterling area were going to be, it was a risk to put United Kingdom sterling into the European arrangement. That is no excuse, of course, for not having got the family together after the war, and for not having reformed the management of sterling.
One of the things that has not been done, and that should have been done, was to have reformed and co-ordinated the full monetary policy of the sterling area so that we knew exactly where we were, and to have put it on a much more formal basis. The fears expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) as to whether, for instance, the Australians will keep the rules or not, are very legitimate. Personally, I am sure that the Australians will keep any gentleman's agreement they make. But it would be better if the management of sterling had been put upon an Imperial and Commonwealth basis. Had that been done, then, with confidence, His Majesty's Government could have said to the European countries, "We need not bother about inventing this new unit in which we are going to calculate how we make intra-European currencies convertible. Sterling is the currency. We can assure you that all the family have got a single monetary policy. Now you join us." They would have done it.
I say that with confidence because I spoke to all the representatives of the nations at the Strasbourg Assembly last summer on those lines. I pointed out to them—and it is on record in the Strasbourg Official Report—that there would


have to be a European convertibility scheme before the next year was out, and I asked them whether they would base it upon sterling. They said, "Yes, if your Government can give us assurances that they have adequately tied up the sterling area and that they will keep prices steady in the sterling area, and, in particular, that they themselves will not pursue an isolationary policy in regard to money in their own country which will infect us with an inflation which we do not want."
They were perfectly ready to take sterling, but they were never asked to do so in that way because His Majesty's Government have all the time wanted to be complete masters over their monetary policy in this country, first refusing to make arrangements with the Dominions, and now, as we see in this Debate, refusing to make arrangements with the Continent. I think that an enormous opportunity has been lost.
I end my remarks by saying that this Payments Union is very good for the very limited object which was in view, but it fails because I do not think it will lead to the increase in productivity of European capital and labour. If it does not do that, it will hinder earning dollars. I think it fails because it might have been an instrument for employment policy had it incorporated really bold provisions for credit co-ordination between the European countries. I think it also fails because it might have taken a step towards personal freedom, which I believe to be the flag under which we shall beat the Communists.

9.18 p.m.

The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Gaitskell): The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) apologised to the Committee for raising this subject at that hour, but he need not have apologised. As far as I am concerned, I am very glad that we have had an opportunity for a discussion before the Recess and before the final stages of signing the areement are actually reached.
It is, after all, a subject of substantial importance to the people of Western Europe, and indeed one might say to almost the whole of the non-dollar world. But it is also undoubtedly a subject which is complicated and technical in character, as some speeches in the Debate have

shown. I am bound to say that I thought that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), who gave us at least a limited sort of blessing and said that he thought it was a good agreement of its kind, showed also that he obviously understood it far better than anybody else.

Mr. Messer: On his side of the Committee.

Mr. Gaitskell: I think I shall leave it as I said it. Undoubtedly a number of hon. Members did not understand the background to this agreement. I will begin by quoting Article 4 of the O.E.E.C. Convention, which reads as follows:
The Contracting Parties will develop, in mutual co-operation, the maximum possible interchange of goods and services. To this end they will continue the efforts already initiated to achieve as soon as possible a multilateral system of payments among themselves, and will co-operate in relaxing restrictions on trade and payments between one another, with the object of abolishing as soon as possible those restrictions which at present hamper such trade and payments.
There, in the rather stilted legal phraseology, is the background to this agreement, and I certainly contend that the European Payments Union proposals mark a very decisive step forward towards these objectives.
It does not seem to have been appreciated by some hon. Members opposite that up to now, although trade has, of course, developed very substantially within Europe and between Europe and the sterling area, nevertheless these developments have been mainly in bilateral channels and that, of course, is itself due in the main, at any rate, to the fact that there were only bilateral payments agreements. I do not think I need elaborate the point, for I am sure that every hon. Member will agree on the desirability of multilateral payments, but, as I say, it does not seem to be generally appreciated how limited the multilateral character of the trade has been despite the part played by sterling in developing that trade and despite the part also played by the insistence on drawing rights under the Marshall Aid proposals.
On 31st January and 1st February of this year, O.E.E.C. decided that there was to be a multilateral payments union and decided also that, as soon as a satisfactory payments union was set up, there


should be an increase in the percentage of liberalisation; that is to say, trade freed from quantitative restrictions up to 60 per cent. There is the starting point of the negotiations which led up to the documents which we are considering this evening.
I think that the documents before us can be divided into three groups. First, there is the payments section of the plan, the inner core, as it were, of the European payments arrangements now put forward. Secondly, there are certain special features which happen to be necessary at the present moment but which are not theoretically, shall I say, an essential feature of any payments agreement. I refer, particularly, to the relationship of Marshall Aid to the payments system and to the disposal of existing debts and, in particular, sterling balances. Thirdly, there are the commercial aspects of the agreement, on which a number of hon. Members have commented.
I do not propose to describe the payments plan in detail. For my part, I should have thought it was fairly clearly set out, if not in the main document itself, at any rate in the guide which is published at the end of the document. When all is said and done, the central idea is a very simple one. I think it is best expressed in paragraph 8 of the document which reads:
They must provide"—
that is, the payments arrangements—
each country with the possibility of using any Western European currency earned by it, through the provision of goods or services, to settle any current debt which it has incurred with a third country within the group.
That is really the core of the European Payments Union, using the term in the rather narrower sense and referring to the payments section of the agreement before us.
Again, I think everybody will agree that it is most desirable, instead of having a system in which one builds up a credit with one country which one cannot use, while one is in debt to another country, that there should be some arrangement for off-setting debts and credits against one another. I think the arrangements for gold and credit, on which I shall have

some comments to make later, are sufficiently clearly set out in this document to make it unnecessary for me to describe them again in detail, despite some speeches made by hon. Members and despite, in particular, the speech made by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams).
If it is in a creditor position, each country has to give 20 per cent. of its total quota as a gold free credit. Thereafter, it receives 50 per cent. of any additional credit balance which it acquires in the form of gold and the remainder has to continue in the form of credit. If it is in deficit, it is entitled to receive 20 per cent. of its quota as a gold free credit granted to it and thereafter, in ascending stages increasingly heavier gold payments, it pays more and more gold in relation to credit until, at the exhaustion of its quota, it has to pay 100 per cent. gold.
That, briefly, is the arrangement, and, as I said, later on I shall have something to say about the reasons why we think that the arrangement which, if I may say so, is neither an extreme gold standard arrangement nor, what would probably please my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) most, something entirely without gold, should have been made. I shall have something further to say later on about that. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) criticised the fact that the agreement was supposed to be lasting for only two years. I draw his attention to the fact that the words in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the document are slightly different from that. Paragraph 15 says:
The Union shall be so designed as to operate as long as it is impossible to establish a multilateral system of European payments by other means.
That is to say—and the implication, I think, is quite clear—that so long as we cannot get a wider sphere of convertibility, then the idea is that it should go on.
In fact there are really three alternatives here. There is the possibility that complete convertibility will come. I would only say that I think that we are still some considerable way off convertibility—I mean with the dollar. There is, secondly, the possibility that the European Payments Union will break down. I do not think myself that that will happen, but I shall have something


to say about that possibility later. Then there is the third possibility that it will, in fact, continue. When we come to paragraph 16 it is quite true that the financial commitments undertaken shall be concluded in the first instance for two years. In other words there is, as it were, a breathing space at the end of two years, when the whole question of whether it should continue or whether it should be modified will come up. I may say, speaking for the Government, that we certainly do not look upon this agreement as something that automatically comes to an end at the end of two years. Far from it. We desire that it should go on as long as it is working well and as long as there is no better system to take its place.
I said earlier on that there were three sections in these documents before us. The first is the straight-forward payment arrangements which I described very briefly just now. The second is the special features of the agreement—not, as I think I said, theoretically necessary in connection with a payments scheme of this kind, but, in fact, adhering to it for special reasons, and the first of those is the relationship of the scheme to Marshall Aid.
It is quite evident from what some hon. Members have said that there is a good deal of misunderstanding on this subject. It must be remembered that in the last two years, while we and other countries have received substantial assistance from the United States in dollars, that assistance has only been granted to us—at any rate, to the United Kingdom; and to many other countries as well—on condition that they made available sums of their own currency to other countries which were debtors to them, in other words with whom they had a credit. These sums are known as drawing rights. So we, as it were, had to pass on a part of our Marshall Aid in the form of sterling grants to other countries. The special arrangements which are described in Annex I, the Annex headed "Initial Positions." are, in fact, the successors to the drawing rights arrangements which existed in the previous years.
So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the position is as follows. The United States have, in effect, said to us, "We shall be giving you some Marshall Aid this year, but some of this

you have got to pass on, but you only pass it on if, in fact, you have a surplus with the rest of Europe." The amount in question is, I think, put into the table—150 million dollars. It is technically correct to say that we start with a debit position of 150 million dollars, but it is a little misleading, if I may say so, for the right hon. Member for Aldershot and the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) to describe it as a handicap, because that 150 million dollars has only to be granted, given away, written off, if you like, to the Union if we have the surplus. If, for instance, we end the year with a deficit, then nothing has to be paid and the whole of our aid, whatever it may be, is direct aid, and none of it is conditional aid.
I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will therefore understand that this is simply continuing an existing arrangement under which the United States have said to us: "We think you are going to be a creditor country, but if you are not a creditor country that is all right; you will not have to pass anything on. But if you are, you must pass on 150 million dollars out of the Marshall Aid we are giving you; and you pass it on, of course, as before, in the form of sterling."
In the cases of Belgium and Sweden, the two other structural creditors as they are called—and, by the way, I may say to the hon. Member for Croydon, East, that simply means a country which is, in view of E.C.A., likely to have, I will not say permanently, but likely to have this year, a credit or, as the case may be, a debit position with the rest of the O.E.E.C. countries—

Sir H. Williams: An Old Moore's Almanac arrangement.

Mr. Gaitskell: Well, in the granting of drawing rights there was a great deal more guesswork than there is in this particular arrangement.
So far as Belgium and Sweden are concerned, the arrangements are slightly different, because they are starting with a handicap. The exact figures are not given yet because their Marshall Aid allocation has not yet been settled; the total between them is 180 million dollars; but they do start with a handicap because they are accepted as structural creditors


and able to pass on certainly more than we can of part of the aid they are receiving from the United States.
Similarly, structural debtors are countries regarded as almost certain to be in deficit, and they would have had drawing rights under the old arrangement; that is to say, they would have been able to finance their deficits with other countries by those drawing rights. They are now given, as it were, special credits of clearing which correspond to the drawing rights they would have had. I hope I have made that position clear. I could explain, I think, the particular formula which the hon. Member for Croydon, East, found.;so difficult, but, if he will forgive me, I will not do so now because there is not very much time. I should be very happy to do so privately. It is not quite so difficult as he makes out.

Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman do it in writing?

Mr. Gaitskell: In writing, if the hon. Gentleman likes, certainly.
I turn now to the other special feature of the agreement—the sections relating to existing balances. I should like, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, to begin by describing exactly what the provisions are. First, the parties—that is to say, the debtor and the creditor—in each case must agree not to fund the existing debts. If that is the case, it is provided under this agreement that if the one that owns the balances—to whom the balances are owed, in other words—is in deficit with the Union, it can use those balances to cover the deficit so far as they go. That is a sort of principle which applies, quite clearly, where there is no agreement to fund; and also, I must add, applies even when there is agreement to fund in certain special cases.
We have said that so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we are prepared to agree that any country which is a holder of sterling balances and gets into deficit with the Union may use those balances, may draw on them, in order to cover its deficit. Why have we been able to say that? Because E.C.A. have made a special arrangement under which they have guaranteed us against losses of gold in those circumstances. I think the position is quite clear. That was one of the things that made it possible for us to bring the whole of the

sterling area into the scheme. The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest seemed to question whether there was really any agreement at all. I can assure him there is. I cannot at the moment publish the correspondence because we have not yet had the permission of the United States. There is correspondence between myself and the United States representative upon this particular subject, putting in writing, in effect, the guarantee against loss of gold, in the circumstances which I have mentioned.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is it, then, the case that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is supported by a letter written by the right hon. Gentleman, which cannot yet be published, but, in fact, will be published at some later date?

Mr. Gaitskell: I should certainly hope so. That is exactly the position. That is, therefore, the special position of sterling. There may also, of course, be funding arrangements, and if two countries agree to fund the debt, then in the ordinary way the interest and repayment will come through the fund and no special complications arise.
It is only if they disagree in the negotiations about funding that they come to the Council and say, "We have disagreed about this," and the Council then investigate it. The procedure then adopted is the one usually adopted in such cases, that a special committee of experts is set up to give an opinion on it. It is not an arbitration in the sense that their decision has to be accepted, but it is going to arbitration in that their report would have great weight with the Council. Failing agreement, and only failing agreement, the debt is to be repaid in two years. It is quite wrong to suggest that all our sterling balances are to be repaid in two years. That is not so at all.

Sir H. Williams: We are talking only of European debts?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am talking only of the European debts. It is quite wrong to suggest that they all have to be repaid in two years—that the £200 million odd which was mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer all has to go back at £100 million per year. That is quite wrong.
What is the position? The right hon. Gentleman asked me to give some


information about our situation. He will, know, appreciate that when we are talking about these balances we are talking about something which is somebody else's property. It is in fact their balances with us. Although these particular countries are not members of the sterling area, many of them treat the balances as part of their currency reserves and do not want the figures published. We cannot, therefore, say "We will publish the figures."
All I will say is this: That the debts in question are owed to three or four countries in particular. I do not see any harm in mentioning them. One is France, and the arrangement with the French—leaving the quantities out because the French are not particularly anxious to have them published, and we do not see why in this very definite case of a banker-client relationship they should be published—is that the repayment of this debt shall be set against the repayment of the £100 million which the French owed to us and which in fact is funded.
Then there is Italy. We hope to make an arrangement, and we have every reason to suppose that we shall make an arrangement, in which there will be some repayment during this period, but most of it will remain on balance.

Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that we owe the Italians money?

Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly.

Sir H. Williams: Who won the war?

Mr. Gaitskell: I could be drawn off into an explanation of this, but all I would say is that part of that is due to the fact that a good deal of sterling was spent in Italy, was then hoarded, and then spent later on, and is recognised and acknowledged as a debt by us. The whole amount is not very large, and only a small portion of that is likely to be repaid in any funding arrangement which is reached.
What is possible, of course, is that some of these countries may become debtor countries. I am bound to say I do not think it is likely, at any rate in the case of Italy and perhaps not in the case of France and not Sweden, but some of them may become debtor countries and then they can draw down the balances under the arrangement I have mentioned. In that case however, we are safeguarded

by the arrangement with E.C.A. against any loss of gold. Therefore there is nothing whatever in the criticism which has come from the other side of the Committee that the arrangements are dangerous to us because they involve suddenly unloosing on Europe a vast amount of sterling. They do nothing of the kind.

Mr. H. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned four countries. He said, France, Italy, Portugal. Is the fourth Sweden?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes. I am much obliged.
The hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) asked me a number of questions which I will do my best to answer. First, he asked whether we had any assets which offset the sterling balances in question. The answer is, yes, we have some. As a matter of fact we have a debt owed to us by Denmark and there the arrangements have recently been published. We have agreed to fund that. Although all the details have not been published, it is quite a satisfactory arrangement from the point of view of both of us. The hon. Member also asked me whether we are quite sure that the gold guarantee would work. The answer is "Yes, I am quite certain it will work because the terms of the correspondence I have mentioned are quite unequivocal and we are not worried about it." It is true there may have to be discussions. Should this arise, obviously the Americans have to be satisfied that if we have a loss of gold it is due to the running down of the balances; but I see no particular difficulty about that. Once we adopt a cumulative principle—that is to say, we take our balances to begin with. where they are in the end and how much gold has been lost meanwhile, it should not be difficult to reach agreement.
Then the hon. Member raised the fear of E.P.U. buying by the rest of the sterling area. The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest made quite extraordinary statements about this. I do not know where he gets the idea that suddenly out of E.P.U., and arising from it, £2,000 million will be loosed on Europe. The effect of E.P.U. on the sterling area, so far as their expenditure is concerned, is very limited indeed. All one can say is that the rest of the sterling area is now in exactly the same position as the United


Kingdom in that it does not matter whether or not they buy from certain countries—Belgium, Switzerland and Western Germany—as compared with others, because now we have a multilateral payments system instead of a series of bilateral payments. Apart from that, there really is no difference at all, and it is just as likely that they will also find Europe buying from them as that they will be buying from Europe. Trade, no doubt for the reasons I have given, will flow more strongly in both directions.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me for interrupting? The statement I made was that £2,000 million of sterling balances would be available now for purchases in Europe, and I understood from what he said that he agreed to that.

Mr. Gaitskell: There is no difference. The £2,000 million always was available. So far as they are members of the sterling area they are entitled to use it. It is their property. It results from arrangements of a gentlemen's agreement character. Formerly the position was that they could spend it all tomorrow if they wanted to do so, but happily the relations between ourselves and other Commonwealth countries are not such as to make that likely. E.P.U. makes not the slightest difference to that situation. Incidentally, if the hon. Member for Barnet were right in his fears, then the right hon. Member for Aldershot would be wrong in thinking we shall have a creditor position with Europe. We are not likely to have the rest of the sterling area buying heavily and at the same time a creditor situation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a rather technical question on paragraph 34 about the right of the fund to discharge a debt to an individual by paying in the creditor's own currency. The reference to that is actually the possibility that somebody might borrow sterling or some other currency from the International Monetary Fund and wish to use it in this way. In fact, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will see that it would be a most unusual thing to happen because, on the one side, all current payments come into the clearing in any case, and, so far as the existing balances are concerned, they are already taken care of. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the

Union could be in the possession of any currency except in very special circumstances.

Mr. Lyttelton: That is why I asked the question.

Mr. Gaitskell: I quite agree. Those are the only circumstances, I think, in which it is likely to take place. I should like now to turn to the commercial sections of the agreement.

Sir H. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman still has not answered the point with which I was really concerned. Under the gold standard the bank rate arrangement gives the stabilising factor. Under the paper standard, the fluctuation of the rate of exchange puts things right. What keeps things right under this scheme?

Mr. Gaitskell: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall try to deal with those general issues towards the end of my speech, but I want to say something about the commercial sections of the agreement, because hon. Members have raised questions about them. It is clear that this agreement simply means that each country will now look, not at the payments position of each individual country, but of all the others taken together. That means that there is no case now for discriminating against another country on balance of payments grounds; that is, after all, the main aim of the whole thing, and is the whole obligation arising from the Payments Agreement. We, and every other country also, are obliged not to use discrimination in any future measure of liberalisation we may take.
In the second place, we are obliged to see that our past measures of liberalization—that is to say, in that part of the trade which is free from quantitative restriction—are also free from discrimination. Thirdly, we are also obliged to follow the principle of non-discrimination, even in that section of our trade which is not liberalized—that is to say, which is still subject to import licences. The next obligation I have already mentioned, namely, that the percentage of our trade, and of that of every other country, to be liberalised goes up from 50 to 60 per cent. as a result of the agreement.
There are, of course, exceptions. The first and most obvious is that if a country finds itself losing gold in a serious matter


—the appropriate paragraphs are Nos. 62 and 64—it may reimpose quantitative restrictions—that is. a protective measure on behalf of its balance of payments as a whole. What it may not do is to reimpose these quantitative restrictions in a discriminatory manner; in other words, it must be done in the same way against all countries. Secondly, there are exceptions —I will not weary the Committee with them all; they are not very important—of rather special types which are mentioned in paragraphs 49 and 54, in special cases where, in the non-liberalised sector, discrimination may be practised. There is, thirdly, a possibility in connection with the accounts; this is in part the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland)—that the Council may waive the rules about non-discrimination either in favour of an extreme debtor or against an extreme creditor, no doubt, in the latter case, to protect the reserves of the Union.

Mr. H. Strauss: Am I right in understanding that the provisions regarding nondiscrimination will have the effect that, as from a date a few months hence, it will be impossible for this country to discriminate in tourist traffic as between Scandinavia and other countries?

Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly not. The Scandinavian case of the tourist traffic is regarded in the same light as a Customs union. There is a special provision, for instance, in the case of Belgium and Luxembourg that they may have a much wider area of liberalisation between them than they have with other countries. Therefore, the Scandinavian position remains the same; we have always made that clear in the Council. As my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, it means, of course, that the special restrictions in the case of Belgium and Switzerland come to and end, and the same rule applies as with everybody else.
I turn finally to the really major issues in this Debate. How far should we have gone in the direction of re-establishing what some have called convertibility and some have called a modified form of the gold standard? Obviously we have a real problem here. There are two possible extremes. On the one side we could have had a payments agreement under which gold payments were made almost at once and at 100 per cent., but there are, I

suggest, very grave objections to that. In the first place, it would certainly have meant in those circumstances a scramble for gold. It would have meant that each country would have been anxious to obtain dollars for gold in order to meet its own dollar deficit and the consequences would have been a severe restriction and not an expansion of European trade.
In present circumstances, with the dollar shortage, the plain fact is that we cannot afford, any of us in Europe, to use dollars to finance purchases from each other; we need the dollars in order to finance our purchases from the United States. On the other hand—to take the opposite extreme, the extreme of no gold at all—clearly we have two difficulties. On the one side we have the possibility that a country may run up an extreme debtor position and nothing is done about it. As the hon. Member for Chippenham said, we could have dealt with that by giving the management powers. There is a limit to what we could expect individual countries to take from a central organisation in this way and also a limit to what other countries will really believe that another country is likely to take. Therefore I do not think we could have had a position in which there was no automatic sanction whatever on the debtor. It would have been wrong, in my view, to expect a creditor to run up vast amounts of credits and get nothing in return for them.
Therefore, we have to find some sort of half way house. This is the particular half way house agreed after a very lengthy negotiation—I may say many different countries started with different views, but we reached agreement—and it is true to say that the E.C.A. and the United States played a most helpful part of a mediatory kind in helping us to reach agreement. I think it is pretty satisfactory as far as that goes, because we do have some sanction on the debtor and at the same time some discouragement to the extreme creditor. They are in their extreme position only getting half their surplus paid in gold and the rest has to be paid in credit. We shall have, as the hon. Member for Chippenham said—and he is quite right—a strong force making for an equilibrium in the balance of payments between one country and the rest in the E.C.A


I believe the hon. Member for Chippenham was a little gloomy and far fetched in the remarks he made at the end of his speech. Of course, no one suggests that this scheme is going to close the dollar gap. One could elaborate at some length on the exact effect it might have on the dollar position of different European countries. It may be good in so far as it leads to a substitution of European sources of supply for dollar sources of supply. It might be bad, on the other hand, if exports previously going to the United States were diverted towards Europe. Broadly speaking, I am sure that, with the advantages of the larger market which come with the multilateral system and liberalisation of trade, in the long run it is certain to improve the dollar situation in Europe as a whole. I agree with the hon. Member for Chippenham that, of course, that is the fundamental aim, to raise the productivity in Europe, and one of the ways in which the productivity will be raised is by greater competition and introducing the larger market it makes possible for everybody, our own exporters and everyone else.
The hon. Member for Chippenham suggested that it would not really work unless we had some co-ordination of credit policy. I think we all recognise that the European payments scheme is not the only type of economic co-operation which we shall have in Europe. After all, we already have, as the hon. Member must surely be aware, committees sitting, for instance, on the internal financial situation in each country. Our representatives take part with those of the other countries. That is designed, of course, to try to make some progress towards a harmonisation of credit policies, but we shall not get automatic harmonisation of credit policies simply by giving anonymous committee power to impose upon us the sort of credit policy which we should adopt. It really will not work like that.
The hon. Member must be aware that there are some differences of opinion among different European countries—not political but technical economic differences—as to the existing role and force of bank credit, for example, within the system. One cannot just say that there should have been powers given, that there should have been sanctions so that this har-

monisation could be imposed. We shall secure far more harmonisation and far more harmony from the sort of arrangements we have made here and which we are making in O.E.E.C. all the time, using the system which involves the unanimity rule, and we all recognise the difficulties of that, than by setting up some body with powers and also presumably by establishing the power of the majority to reach decisions, for such a body would be meaningless without that. It is not correct to assume that agreement can only be obtained on those lines.
I would end by saying that obviously the exact outcome of the European Payments Union cannot be precisely prophesied. No one would say that. My view is that we shall be roughly in balance with Europe. We do not expect to have a large creditor or debtor position. We have provided, I think wisely, that while we have to give credits and shall be able to receive them, we are not likely to gain or lose gold as a result of entering this scheme. That is extremely important. It means that if we have a favourable position in Europe, which will certainly be associated with high raw material prices, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, probably an accumulation of sterling balances here, at the same time if the position switches the other way we shall also have a cushion on which to fall back.
That seems to be extremely important; but whether the scheme works and how well it works depends on whether the individual countries will try to bring themselves into balance. It also depends on whether we shall be able to achieve the harmonisation in the way in which I think it should be done or in the way in which the hon. Member for Chippenham recommends, and whether we shall really treat the exceptions which will inevitably have to be granted under this scheme as exceptions and not as something which any country can come along and take advantage of.
I do not claim that this is the solution to all the problems of Europe, but it takes a marked and most decisive step forward. It is an important achievement for 18 countries, on a complicated subject of this kind, to be able, with the unanimity rule and all, to reach agreement. We can be well satisfied with what has been achieved, and also with the part


which His Majesty's Government have played in achieving it.

To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Sparks.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Council of Europe) Order in Council, 1950, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th July."—[Mr. Younger.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Universal Postal Union) Order in Council, 1950, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th July."—[Mr. Younger.]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I think it is a generally accepted principle that the law should not be changed except to meet a clear and present need. We do not legislate for future contingencies or for a hypothetical uniformity. We change the law to meet a need. By this Order we shall be changing the law in this country in regard to certain persons connected with the Universal Postal Union; and the first question which, I submit, the House has to consider is, whether there is any practical need for that change in the law.
The Universal Postal Union has been in existence since 1874. It may be, and if it is the case then I think the Minister of State should inform the House, that the lack of these immunities and priviliges in the past has been found a hindrance to the work of the Universal Postal Union. If it has been so, I must say that I have failed to ascertain how

that has been. To narrow the scope of the question, for some months, in fact for more than a year past, the Universal Postal Union has acceded to the Convention in implementation of which this Order is made. Yet the Government have for 15 months not come before this House to ask that an Order on these lines should be made. I would therefore ask the Minister of State a second question, whether, in those 15 months, any inconvenience has been experienced by the Universal Postal Union from the lack of these privileges and immunities. If such a case cannot be made out, then I think the House should hesitate before it extends the existing scope of diplomatic privileges and immunities.
Not only is such an extension in that case unnecessary, but an extension is a positive disadvantage. All of us at this time are very disturbed at the general decline in respect in many countries of the world for ambassadorial status, for the old diplomatic rights and privileges which were observed in the past throughout the civilised world. That standard of conduct has catastrophically declined in many parts of the world in the last few years. At the same time we are constantly increasing the ambit of diplomatic privilege; and every step we take to increase the number of people entitled to these immunities increases the temptation to devalue the immunities. I therefore make this first point about the disadvantages of extending the scope, namely, that every time we extend these privileges we devalue them.
We have also to consider the effect upon our own public at home. After all, it is a truism that every privilege conferred upon one person is a disadvantage put upon all others, because that person is placed in a superior position to all the rest. While I am sure that the public understand and appreciate the necessity for diplomatic representatives of Governments to have a special position and a position reciprocally acknowledged, or which ought to be acknowledged, I think it will be increasingly difficult to make the public understand why these privileges should be accorded to an ever-increasing horde, or host, of international bureaucrats. We have to take into account in these matters the opinion of our own people.
I ventured to use the expression, "international bureaucrats," We are build-


ing up, by orders of this sort, a constantly growing class not of United Kingdom bureaucrats but of international bureaucrats—a kind of super-bureaucracy attached to these various international organisations. Whatever view one may hold of these organisations themselves, we must be most cautious in asserting that their officials and representatives are, as such, entitled to diplomatic privileges upon their occasions.
We shall probably be told that, whatever force there may be in the observations which I have made, they are made too late in the day; that the Convention under which this Order is made was ratified by the General Assembly of the United Nations organisation in, I think, November, 1947; that our own representative on that occasion assented to it and, therefore, that this House is bound to implement that Convention. But that argument cannot be pressed too far. From the Convention printed in Cmd. Paper 7673, it will be seen that two conditions must be satisfied before any of these specialised agencies can enjoy these privileges. That specialised agency—which, before it becomes such, must have made a treaty with the United Nations organisation under the auspices of U.N.E.S.C.O.—must accede to the Convention. Secondly, each country concerned must ratify the Convention in respect of that specialised agency.
Therefore, I submit that this House has a free decision in front of it. We are not committed in advance, in respect of these specialised agencies, by this Convention. We are entitled to take each case upon its merits, and that is what I think we ought to do most critically in this instance.
It is true that, by acceding to the Convention in which at least 10 of these specialised agencies, including the Universal Postal Union, were already set out, perhaps a prima facie case was made that, when they acceded, the Convention would be ratified in regard to each of them. But if we accept that Convention as a carte blanche given to these agencies, to expect that merely by their acceding to the Convention this House will automatically pass the necessary Orders, then we are willing away part of the sovereignty of Parliament which we ought to retain.
I maintain, first, that this House has an open question before it, which is whether this Convention ought to be ratified—and the Order is designed to make that ratification possible—in respect of the Universal Postal Union. Second, unless the Minister can show that there is a real and present need for these immunities and privileges in respect of this agency, then they should be refused.

10.10 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): This House, rightly I think, has been jealous of the extension of diplomatic privileges to any new class of persons. Since 1944, we have had three separate Acts, and, finally, a consolidating Act of 1950 to consolidate the law in this respect. This Order—with the Order to which the House has just agreed—is the first to be made under the new consolidating Act. There can be no question at all that the House has a free discretion in this matter whether to grant this Order or not.
I was asked whether there was any practicable need for it. The fact is, and this would have been true also of the previous Order, relating to the Council of Europe, that, because the great majority of these international organisations have their permanent seats abroad, because their secretariats are permanently lodged abroad and because the great majority of their conferences take place abroad, by granting privileges to them in this country, we are granting very little. There are practically no people involved, there are very few meetings of the bodies involved, there may, at the most, be some subsidiary offices of the organisation which may have their seat in London. But, the privileges granted in cases of this kind are reciprocal. They are privileges granted by one country on the understanding that they will be granted by all the other member countries, and the privileges are very real and necessary when one considers the country in which the organisation is situated.
After the war, when a large number of new international organisations of all kinds were springing up, it was thought desirable that the question of the privileges to be granted to them should be, as far as possible, consolidated and put upon a rational basis. It was for that reason that the Convention to which the hon. Gentleman referred was adopted in


November, 1947, by the General Assembly of the United Nations—a Convention which was to be applicable to a whole range of organisations. It only became applicable if the procedure laid down in the Convention was followed. That procedure has been followed and the Convention has become applicable to the Universal Postal Union, which is an organisation long ante-dating the United Nations itself.
All hon. Members who have looked at the privileges and immunities sought to be granted will realise that it is necessary that some provisions of this kind should be made if international organisations are to function adequately. They would be applicable to France in the case of the Council of Europe and to Switzerland in the case of the Universal Postal Union. It is absolutely necessary, as a condition of having these very necessary privileges granted, that all other members should be prepared to give reciprocity, and I think that is a sound and reasonable principle.
It will be remembered that, when the 1950 Diplomatic Privileges Act was passing through the House, it was agreed that, in Orders which might subsequently be made, the privileges and immunities granted should not go beyond what it was necessary to grant for the carrying out of the international obligation. That is what we are seeking to do in this case, as in the case of the previous Order to which the House has just agreed, and I hope that, with that explanation, the House will be prepared to agree to this Order.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I really think that the explanation of this Order given by the Minister of State is very unsatisfactory indeed. The right hon. Gentleman has talked a great deal about the Council of Europe and the various Acts of Parliament which have, in recent years, extended diplomatic privilege, but, so far, he has made out no case whatever for extending diplomatic privileges and immunities to an organisation that has been in existence for about 75 years, and which, until recently, apparently, never felt the need for any diplomatic privileges and immunities.
One of the things which historians might note in years to come, when they are dispassionately recording the record

of the party opposite since 1945, may be the very great increase indeed in the number of persons entitled to enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities since 1945 in the era of Socialist misrule in this country. We are now asked to consent to the extension of diplomatic privileges and immunities to the Universal Postal Union, and in making out the cast for this Order, the hon. Gentleman did not put forward a single cogent and convincing argument why the Universal Postal Union should now have privileges which, in the whole of its long history, it has not found necessary at all. We are not really discussing here the Council of Europe. We discussed that quite recently, and that Order has been made.
I must confess that while I was glad that the Minister of State got up fairly early in this Debate, I should have thought that he would have taken the first opportunity of explaining to the House what this Order did—for, after all, it is subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure—and making out the case for giving the diplomatic privileges to the Universal Postal Union. That is a long-established body, and I know it has done most useful work. It has, I believe, an international office at Berne. In the past, it has held a number of congresses and a number of conferences, of which, I think the most recent was in 1947.
I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether any difficulty has been experienced in all those long years, in connection with any of these conferences or congresses, owing to the absence of diplomatic privilege and immunity. I know that this Universal Postal Union has done most useful work, but will the hon. Gentleman say what has happened to make it necessary now that these privileges and immunities should be granted. What new factor has arisen upon the scene?
I would ask the House to examine for a moment to what exactly it is being asked to agree. It is, to agree to the Universal Postal Union having
the like inviolability of the official archives and premises occupied as offices as is accorded in respect of the official archives and premises of an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty,
and to agree that
the Union shall have the like exemption or relief from taxes and rates other than taxes on the importation of goods, as is accorded to a foreign sovereign Power.


Dealing with the representatives, the House will see from this Order that the term "representatives" includes:
Alternate representatives, advisers, technical experts, secretaries of delegations
and that
representatives at Congresses, on the Executive and Liaison Commission, at administrative Congresses and on commissions of the Union shall enjoy:—
(a) While exercising their functions as such and during their journeys to and from the place of meeting, immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their personal baggage and inviolability for all papers and documents.
(b) Immunity from legal process of every kind in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their capacity as representatives.
I do not propose to read out the whole list—it is a fairly long one—of privileges which, under this Order, are to be granted to the Universal Postal Union and its representatives, but I think it is worthy of note that the Director of the International Bureau is to be accorded
in respect of himself, his spouse and minor children, the like immunity from suit and legal process, the like inviolability of residence as is accorded to the envoy of a foreign Power accredited to His Majesty, his spouse and children and exemption from income tax in respect of emoluments received by him as an officer of the Union.
It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to come here and tell us that we are really granting very little. In fact, it may be that few people will, if this Order is passed, enjoy these privileges in this country. But, in fact, the hon. Gentleman is asking this House to grant a great deal, and without making any case whatsoever for doing so.
How many people does he estimate will be able to take advantage of the privileges conferred by this? What is the staff of the Union, how many representatives are there? We know that Russia, the Ukraine, and White Russia are members. Under this, we give privileges and immunities to their representatives. What is the case for doing this? It has not been made out. If this Union has been able to carry on and function most successfully, as it has done until 1950, without any of these privileges, it is incumbent upon the hon. Gentleman to justify, more fully than he has done the change it is now proposed to make.
There has been this very vast extension, and it seems to have become a custom or fashion now, as soon as an international organisation is formed, to seek to get attached to some parent body, like the United Nations, and, immediately afterwards, as a matter of status, to come along and ask for all kinds of diplomatic privileges and immunities in this country. We ought to demand a further explanation from the hon. Gentleman, and a further justification for this Order. As he says, the matter is in the free discretion of the House. We ought to be very careful indeed that these privileges are really required for the proper use and discharge of the functions of this Union before we grant them.
It may well be—one does not know —that the next Order we shall find is one for the International Bar Association, or for the International Federation of Trade Unions. Really, this is getting beyond all limits; and I suggest it is not enough for the hon. Gentleman just to come here and ask the House to approve the granting of extensive diplomatic privileges, merely by putting forward the sort of arguments he did this evening.
I hope he will be able to convince us that a case for this Order really does exist. It is not enough to say, "Well, after all, these privileges are reciprocal, and these congresses usually meet in Switzerland and the staff is in Switzerland," unless he goes further and says that these diplomatic privileges are really necessary, and must be enjoyed in Switzerland if the Union is not to be impeded in the exercise of its functions.
I have been critical of this Order. This is not the first time I have had to be critical of extensions of diplomatic privileges. At the same time I hope the hon. Gentleman will satisfy the House that this Order is necessary, by making out a much better case than he has made out so far.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the Minister of State moved this Motion with that nod which is, I think, the best argument that the Government now use, I thought there was little case for this Order. When, after he was asked for an explanation, the Minister of State gave his explanation, I


was even more convinced that there was absolutely no case at all for the Order.
The Minister of State saw fit to use the oldest and the worst Parliamentary argument—the argument that this was a very small matter and that there were very few individuals affected and, therefore, it did not matter. That is a thoroughly bad argument, because, of course, it is a completely reversible argument. If it is a small matter, and few people are affected, why take this step at all? Why bother to confer these privileges? That is a particularly relevant consideration when what we are asked to do, while its practical effects may be large or small, is something which does affect very considerable issues of principle. If, therefore, we are concerned, as the Minister of State has told us, with very small practical considerations and with very few people, then surely that is an irresistible argument why we should not introduce this change into an already over-strained law of diplomatic privilege.

Mr. Younger: I do not think I put it quite in that form. What I said was that we were granting relatively few privileges in practice. I did not say that it was at all unimportant that privileges should be granted in the country where these organisations principally operate. What I did was to point out that we can only get those privileges, which may be very important from a practical point of view, if all the members grant reciprocity.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully appreciate that. But the hon. Gentleman said that we were granting very little, and that very few individuals were involved. That, of course, is the classical servant girl's baby argument, and I do not think it has been improved to any degree by what the hon. Gentleman has just said. What we are being asked to do, while it may affect very few individuals in this country, is further to inflate the already over-inflated amount of diplomatic privilege which is now conceded. As any hon. Member knows who leaves the precints of this Palace, he always has great difficulty in preventing himself from being run over by a motorcar with a C.D. plate upon it.

Mr. James Hudson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I only hope that the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for

these motor cars will not involve him in an accident which would cause a by-election which, for personal reasons, hon. Members on this side of the House and for political reasons hon. Members on the opposite side would regret.
The Minister of State used another argument. He said that if this very important international organisation was to continue to function—I took down his words—it was necessary that some provisions of this sort should be made. Why? In fact, this international organisation, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has said, has functioned for 76 years and there is no hon. Member who would say that the postal services, national or international, have improved in recent years. If this international organisation could operate with
greater efficiency than it is operating nowadays without these privileges, why on earth have some such privileges as these, according to the Minister of State, now to be given? He referred to "some such privileges." Surely, when we are being asked to exempt people from the ordinary law of this country, it is not good enough to say that something of the sort is needed. Surely it is essential that the Minister should point out precisely what are the practical things which are needed, and then concede them, and no more.
The Minister of State has not bothered to tell us from a practical point of view what the necessities are. Having great respect for his debating ability, I think the hon. Gentleman has not done so because he knows there are no practical necessities. I believe the real truth of the matter is that the Government have entered into the obligations of the Convention, as they have entered into the obligations of so many others, without really seriously thinking of the consequences, and now the bill is presented and the House of Commons is expected to honour it.
When we look at what it is proposed actually to do, it does not appear to be quite so small a matter as the Minister suggests. If hon. Members will look at paragraph 8 of the Order, relating to high officials of the Union, they will see that it appears that we are being asked to confer upon high officials of this Union the full immunities which are given, and have been given under custom of considerable age, to ambassadors at the Court of


St. James—that is, special immunities specially and properly given to protect the direct representative of a foreign Power at His Majesty's Court. Those in-the-past jealously-guarded prerogatives are now to be given to high officials of the Union, involving as they do not only complete inviolability of person and premises but also protection from Income Tax upon official emoluments.
Is it seriously suggested that the absence of these considerable privileges will seriously handicap the working of the Universal Postal Union? If that is seriously suggested, it has not yet been said. If the Minister cares at a later stage, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to tell us, we will listen to his argument; but, in the absence of some evidence to the contrary, it seems ludicrous to suggest that it is necessary to create these kinds of crypto-ambassadors in order to see that the international postal services operate.
One other angle was touched upon by my hon. and learned Friend. In these days we are naturally concerned with security considerations. Every additional step for conferring immunity from the ordinary law of the land upon persons, whether British subjects or foreign ones, must be looked at from the security angle, as I am certain the Home Secretary does look on these matters. After the experiences we have had in this country in the last few months, surely it is right for the House to look cautiously on the possibility of conferring protection from the ordinary law on persons who may be here apparently for one purpose but who might be concerned to take action hostile to the national interest while they are here.
It is wise to be strict and to limit the conferring of these privileges to people for whom they are essential—the real representatives of sovereign States in this country. It is wise to say to the Universal Postal Union, "We appreciate your work; we think you have done very well in the last 76 years, and if you carry on along the same lines and with the same absence of privilege you have had in the last 76 years, we shall have no complaint." I suggest that no case whatever has been made for this further step to create privileged people inside this country. I suggest that it is a harmful and dangerous proposal. No argument has been adduced for going further with it and, in accord-

ante with the ordinary custom and attitude of this House, where no case is made out for exempting persons from the operations of the law it is better to let the law apply.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Woods: It is rather entertaining to hon. Members on this side to hear hon. Members opposite condemning privilege, when most of us have long memories of their constant fight for privilege. I am not surprised. Behind this is a vital dividing line between the two sides of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) was careful to pay tribute to the Universal Postal Union and to the work it has done; but I suggest that any of the responsible and efficient officials and servants of that organisation would not be pleased to hear themselves described by responsible representatives of the British people as "world bureaucrats," and as "cryptoambassadors," and to hear the suggestion that they could not be trusted and that their work, after all, is mundane and unimportant.
To say that sort of thing is not a service to this country or to internationalism. It is conceded by the Opposition that representatives of foreign Governments—Russia and other countries for which they have no affection have been mentioned—are here and enjoy certain privileges that we accord to such honourable guests. The day has arrived when many realise that over and above nationalism, there must be efficient international organisation. That cannot be facilitated unless the recommendations of this Convention, which have been approved by the United Nations organisation, are endorsed as being applicable to this country.
The situation is that this organisation has the most honourable record of service to international purposes and to mankind as a whole, irrespective of nationality, of any organisation in existence. The fact that it has done such efficient service over all these years and secured the possibility of communication right round the planet, is something about which we should rejoice.
All the countries of the world recognise it was this little old country of ours that gave to the world penny postage. Long before the present Government came into


office, after the First World War it was found necessary to pay the cost of that war, and one way to pay it was by increased charges for postal services. Long before we came into office, the penny postage had gone; but the principle remains, and I suggest that the 2½d. paid today is equivalent, roughly speaking, to the penny of the days of Rowland Hill. But that is merely trying to get away from the main issue confronting this House. [Laughter.] I have always noticed, in my long experience in the House, that when the Opposition are in a bad hole, and have a very feeble case, they try to cover that up by inane laughter.
Certainly, we feel very strongly that the day has arrived when international organisations have to be recognised as superseding, in the main, mere national organisations. If we can concede such a privilege to the representatives of one nation, the day has arrived when, under this Order we ought to concede the same privilege to representatives of the Universal Postal Union. Let us come to the practical issue. There is no country in the world where it would be more appropriate to hold a congress of the Universal Postal Union than Britain. In practically any country in the world, what is being asked for here would be granted to the officials of that organisation. If it goes forth that by a decision of this House there is to be no such recognition in this country of the importance and status of this organisation, we may invite it to hold its congress in Britain, but that will never be done while such disrespect is shown to the organisation. If there is to be a congress of that organisation in this country, it will, only come to pass if we play the game, as other countries do, and recognise the importance to the modern world of such an organisation.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Bell: I did not understand that any of my hon. Friends had cast the slightest discredit upon, or imputed the slightest distrust of, any of the officials of the Universal Postal Union. What the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. Woods) does not realise, in discussing this matter, is that many people who are doing work of the highest importance, and whose integrity is beyond doubt, are asked to do that

work and to carry on their functions under the ordinary law of their countries. Their very integrity makes it all the easier for them to do so. What the Minister of State entirely failed to point out, as my hon. Friends have indicated, was any reason why these privileges should be essential, or even very important, in the country in which the conference or congress is held.
The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) referred to the fact that in the last 76 years a great many conferences and congresses of this body have been held—I think altogether there have been 20 of them. One would at least have expected the Minister of State to refer to some inconvenience or friction which had occurred in the past through lack of the immunities and privileges for which he is asking tonight; but there was no such reference in his speech.
He said that by this Order we should be granting very little, and I think he implied, that it was a rather good move because we should be getting more than we gave. Perhaps I misunderstood his argument, but he seemed to me to imply that. If the great advantage to be derived from making this Order is the making of a similar order by other countries—I do not accept for a moment the legitimacy of that argument as addressed to this House, but if it is the argument—then I think the Minister of State should have supported it by facts showing why the Universal Postal Union cannot carry out its functions at conferences and in between them in the countries of Europe without enjoying the privileges of ambassadors.
There is a fundamental distinction between the Union and an ambassador, or any other kind of envoy, who is the projection into the country to which he is accredited, of the sovereignty of the country which he represents. It is right that he should enjoy personal immunities and privileges and secret communications with the country whose interests he is protecting. But why should the Universal Postal Union, which is the general international liaison body for national posts, and which arranges the transit of letters and parcels and telegraphic communications, have these immunities? Which of its functions cannot the Universal Postal Union easily carry out in


the light of day, and without any immunity from the law of the different countries with which it is concerned?
The hon. Member for Droylsden said he was surprised to hear us on this side of the House denouncing the extension of privilege. He may remember that the present Minister of Health, when the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944. was before the House, expressed his surprise that the then Government took so low a view of our system of jurisprudence that they wished to confine its benefits to so few people. In fact, what we on this side of the House are attacking is the creation of an entirely new and damaging form of privilege that is becoming endemic in public life today, and that is official privilege—the privilege of a new official class. My hon. and learned Friend very rightly referred to the growth of an international bureaucracy. The truth is that this Order is being brought
forward as a matter of course. It is assumed that everybody who has some connection with the United Nations, which constitutes an international officialdom, ought to enjoy this new official status of privileged immunity.
There is, indeed, as my hon. and learned Friend said, a real danger that we shall see the gradual enlargement and debasement of present diplomatic privilege into a general official superiority. I am sure that the Government would be as sorry to see that as would anybody else. My hon. and learned Friend referred to paragraph 8 of this Order. I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 9, from which it appears that we are not merely granting these privileges and immunities to an extended number of people but even to an indefinite class of people, because in that paragraph we extend privilege and immunity to all officials of the International Bureau of the categories specified by the Director. So we are conferring upon the Director of the Universal Postal Union a delegated authority to confer a degree of diplomatic privilege upon his officials.
1 agree that it is one of the lower orders of diplomatic privilege; it is not the full ambassadorial extent; but these things do begin in a small way, and each thing does become a precedent for further extensions, and I think it most dangerous that this House should

approve an Order that confers delegated authority to grant diplomatic privilege upon the head of some international organisation. If we are going to do it, all the categories should be closely defined and limited, so that, for example, a British court should not be placed in the difficulty of having to find out which categories the Director of the Bureau has. in fact, specified.
I therefore ask the House to treat this matter as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked that it should be treated, as a question of principle. We are here making a dangerous extension from the truly diplomatic class to the bureaucratic class of international official, and if we once embark upon that dangerous road we shall be constantly bound, by the precedents we have created to a progressive debasement of what is at present a valuable privilege.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Lionel Heald: If it were only a matter of one or two officials of this particular organisation, I should not think it right to take up any time of the House on this matter, but when we look at the Explanatory Note—which is rather more explanatory than the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman—we find that the question of principle emerges rather clearly, because it is there stated that the reason for this Order is that we are here dealing with what is called a "specialised agency". This is the first time that such a thing has been considered. On the previous Order we were dealing with a very different matter; we were dealing there with the Council of Europe. It does seem that we are entitled to a very clear explanation of the lines upon which the Government intend to proceed.
I have had the curiosity to try to find out what a "specialised agency" is, and on reference to the Charter of the United Nations I find that it is an extremely vague thing. It is
Any agency established by inter-governmental agreement, and having wide international responsibilities, which enters into an agreement with the United Nations"—
and particularly with U.N.E.S.C.O. Having regard to what we have learned that U.N.E.S.C.O. has been doing recently —as some articles in the "Manchester Guardian" disclose in rather an inter-


esting way—one appreciates that there may be all sorts of curious organisations which become embroiled in U.N.E.S.C.O.
If this Order is made without any careful consideration, there is not the slightest justification for refusing the same privileges to some other people who live, I believe, in the same street in Berne. The International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the International Copyright Union—almost identical organisations with this—both have their offices in Berne. What justification is there for refusing them these privileges? There is none—unless the Minister of State can lay down, as he should, certain principles and reasons which necessitate giving these privileges to one of these bodies and justify us in refusing them to others. If the matter had been dealt with in that way, if we had been told that there were certain really good reasons why the Universal Postal Union ought to have these privileges, then I should myself find it difficult to object. But we have been given no such reasons.
I suggest the only reason that emerges is simply this: that His Majesty's Government are taking, quite broadly and quite literally, what is said in these conventions. They say: "There is reference in the United Nations Charter to specialised agencies. Well, this is a specialised agency, so we must give it immunity"—and that will apply to every single one. If that is the position that is taken up, I feel bound to oppose this Motion, not with the slightest objection to the Universal Postal Union—a reason for which the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. Woods) was so annoyed with us, although there is no such approach in my mind—but simply on the question of principle: that unless some good reason is given for giving this body exceptional privileges, it should not be accepted.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I was sorry that the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. Woods) made the speech he did. I was sorry for this reason: that I honestly believed, and I still believe—and I hope that he will preserve an open mind until he has heard the whole of my argument—that there is no reason why there should be any difference

between the two sides of the House upon this occasion.
The hon. Member for Droylsden expressed some astonishment that this side of the House was objecting to privilege. I think his astonishment was groundless, but perhaps he would allow me to express my astonishment that Socialists should be openly advocating privilege. It used to be characteristic of the Left to say—this was one of the worthier arguments they put forward—that privilege was a wrong thing, that people should be equal before the law. Why should they suddenly turn round tonight and say that, unless we grant privilege to some people, we are insulting them?
Was there ever a more absurd argument? Is it really a mark of the progress of international relations that more and more people should be placed above the law? Hon. Members opposite often say that what they want is an extension of the rule of law, yet tonight they come without any argument at all, as far as I know, and say, "You must extend immunity from the process of law"—does the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt?

Mr. Speaker: I hope this argument will not be pursued much further. It was only a slight reference and we must dis. cuss the Order and not the ethics of international relations.

Mr. Woods: My reference was actually to what was stated concerning the officials and the description given from those Benches. We are not standing for privilege, but we should act decently and give hospitality in a proper way to an international organisation.

Mr. Strauss: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Of course we should treat all these people hospitably. Of course we should be polite to them. Of course we approve of the Universal Postal Union. But do we really say that we cannot treat a guest in this country politely, unless we make him immune from the rule of law? It seems to me the most extraordinary proposition. Nor do I believe—and I hope the hon. Member will believe that I am saying what has been my experience in my professional life—that it is always an advantage to have diplomatic privilege. In a case which came within my personal knowledge—I will not give the details, Mr. Speaker, but the principle is im-


portant and is germane to the argument—some years ago, a lady and her hushand who enjoyed diplomatic privilege refused to pay the wages of the midwife who had attended the birth of the child of that couple. There was no remedy whatever for that unfortunate person—

Mr. James Hudson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How do the wages of a midwife come into the Order that we are now discussing?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member rose rather too soon. I might have had some remarks to make myself.

Mr. Strauss: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out the effect of diplomatic privilege. I think hon. Members who are advocating diplomatic privileges for the Universal Postal Union are quite ignorant of the effect of granting diplomatic privilege. It can result in the most appalling injustice. If a person is run down in the street by somebody enjoying diplomatic privilege, the victim will have no remedy in law. Those are the facts. I cannot believe hon. Members opposite desire that state of affairs. I assume, in favour of hon. Members opposite, that they have no desire whatever for such injustice.

Mr. Speaker: The question of diplomatic privilege does arise, but if there is to be a birth or somebody is to be run over in the street, that must apply to someone in the Universal Postal Union.

Mr. Strauss: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, and so far as I know a member of the Universal Postal Union could come over here, enjoy diplomatic privilege under this Order and would be at liberty to drive a car—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or have a baby."] If such a person ran down another person in the street, that victim, if this Order is adopted, would have no remedy in law whatsoever. In my respectful submission, it is not unimportant for this House to realise that fact. It has a most important result. I am putting to the hon. Member, whose sincerity in making his case from the other side of the House I fully appreciate, that he assumed that it would be a definite advantage in all cases for people to have this privilege; but I assure him that that is not so.
Let us examine this a little further. Suppose the Director of the Universal

Postal Union wanted to take the lease of a house: he might find that the legal advisers of the person who might otherwise let him have the lease would advise his client that it was not advisable to do so precisely for the reason that he enjoyed diplomatic privilege. I very much doubt if there is any member of the legal profession in the House who has not known of cases where it has been the duty of legal and professional advisers to advise against entering into contractual relations with those enjoying diplomatic immunity.
I quite agree that one might disregard these arguments, which I submit are cogent and important arguments, if there were an overwhelming reason so to do. But what is the reason suggested? The Minister of State, who always puts his case as persuasively and as reasonably as it can be put, advances no reason except that of reciprocity. But what did he say of this particular Union? He said that its head office was in Berne, and I should like to ask this: Is there an hon. Member of this House who would hesitate to visit Switzerland because he was going to be subject to Swiss law? Of course not. It would be most insulting to the Swiss to suggest that any person would have the least hesitation about going to Switzerland because of being subject to the ordinary operation of Swiss law. Of course, the same thing applies in this country. No reason of any sort has been put forward for this Order. I suggest that this is an example of the sort of confusion that has arisen from a portentously illiterate expression from the other side of the Atlantic "under-privileged."
Of course, that expression can never be justified. Privilege means an advantage which one man has over his neighbour under the law; that may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing, but by its nature it cannot be a universal thing; and nothing is so idiotic as to condemn privilege and then to use a word that suggests that there is not enough of it. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may think that this is something funny and that it is a joking matter, but honestly it is not in the least funny—I will give hon. Members an opportunity of making silly noises again if they wish to—to subject people in this country to the risk of injury without any legal remedy unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.
The Minister of State, in his reasonable argument this evening, put forward no reason of necessity at all. He said quite frankly that this House was able quite honourably either to adopt or to reject this Order. I suggest that this House ought to reject it because, in the absence of any cogent argument in favour of privilege, it ought to be condemned not only on every ground held dear by Members on this side who believe in subjecting people to the rule of law, but also on every ground which has hitherto been proclaimed by hon. Members opposite, who have said that they do not wish to place people above the law.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of State intended to make some reply to the arguments.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know. It does not arise.

Mr. Basil Nield: I rise only to say that since many arguments of a serious nature have been advanced against this Order and since, in my view, very little has been said in favour of it, I thought the Minister of State would do us the courtesy to make some reply. I hope he will agree to do
so.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Peter Smithers: I hope the House will excuse me for intervening for a moment so late in the evening, but I am one of the few hon. Members who, for nearly six years, actually enjoyed these privileges myself. Trying to put myself in the place of members of the Universal Postal Union, I am trying to imagine what it is that they can possibly require these privileges for.
As I remember, I did not make any use of them, as suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss), in running people down in the street and indeed, when my child was born, I distinctly remember the bill was paid. The kind of things which diplomatic privileges were used for were the small courtesies of life. It was very agreeable to pass through the Customs without ever having to open a bag. It was very agreeable to have use of a secret post and to be able to park one's car any where in the street.
I cannot conceive what use these privileges can be to members of the Universal

Postal Union. To an organisation which requires to carry a great many secret documents, it may be that immunity from arrest is of great value and, no doubt, in the case of diplomatic representatives it would be embarrassing if they did not enjoy freedom from arrest and, therefore, were subjected to the possibility of embarrasing incidents. But I cannot think the members of the Universal Postal Union travel about with documents and material of such a secret and embarrassing nature that if they were picked up by some local national police it would lead to an international incident. Surely it is to prevent that kind of situation that immunity from arrest is granted. I think some clear case ought to be made by the Minister and some explanation given as to just what use these privileges will be to the people for whom they are designed.

11.5 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: It really is rather unfortunate that after so many cogent arguments have been put forward from this side of the House that the Minister should not condescend to reply on a matter which has obviously excited considerable interest from the very fact of its novelty. If there had been precedents for this matter, it would have been enough to say that this Order was in line with them, and that they had been discussed before by the House. That would be an entirely different matter, but this subject is a novel one. Diplomatic immunity is being granted to the Universal Postal Union, which is by no means a new or unusual service, and which has manafied to rub along without this privilege for many years past.
My hon. Friends, the guardians of the people, have asked why this should be granted, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss) has pointed out briefly what might be involved in certain cases by an undue extension of diplomatic privilege. The Government ask that this Order shall be approved, criticisms have been made of it, and it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister of State, who has appeared personally to move this Motion to reply to the Debate.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: If the Minister of State is eventually going to drag himself on to his feet to answer the argu-


ments of the Opposition, I hope he will answer one further query. Where are we going to stop in granting this privilege to these various organisations? Mention has been made of certain other types of organisations.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the Universal Postal Union, and not to any other organisation.

Mr. Hay: I was asking the Minister of State if he was going to explain whether this was just one of a number of Orders of this sort.

Mr. Speaker: We can deal only with this one and not with a number.

Mr. Hay: Then I will ask the Minister whether he realises the extent of this privilege. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss) mentioned one or two examples. If in fact, this organisation gets diplomatic privilege, there are a number of other things which it can do that will cause grave disquiet to the House. The organisation can sue any one of His Majesty's subjects but cannot be sued itself. It can commit any wrong and break any contract because it is not amenable to any judicial process, and there is no redress.
Becuase its premises are inviolable and immune from search, the Union in in this country could hold a British subject under restraint without being liable to the process of habeas corpus. It could keep explosives on its premises, sell drinks without a licence, even run a gambling house. It could refuse to pay rent and rates; it could even harbour runaway criminals. Since its premises could be searched, nothing could be stopped. It could hold a stock of Irish Sweepstake tickets and sell them because from my reading of the draft Order it appears that its documents would also be inviolable and immune from seizure.
The various representatives of the Union coming here for a conference could bring into the country all sorts of things like drugs and firearms, and they would be free from any search. They could take out sketches, maps, plans, drawings, and photographs of various defence establishments and installations. While they are in this country these representatives could slander or libel any of

His Majesty's subjects, who would have no redress. They could, if they chose, do malicious damage to property with no redress. It is a disgrace that the Minister of State has not stated precisely why he feels this particular organisation should have these powers.

11.9 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I should like to reinforce the arguments that have been made and appeal to the Minister of State to answer some of the very material points which have been put. When I was in this House before, I took a very great interest in the Diplomatic Privilege (Extension) Act, 1944. When I was out of the House, there was passed the Act of 1946, which entirely altered the whole idea of diplomatic privilege, and extended it to organisations coming within a more considerable area, including the Universal Postal Union, than was contemplated in 1944. I should like to ask the Minister of State whether, in view of what has happened in the last few years, this sort of thing is to go on and is to be extended to other organisations. In view of the arguments that have been put, will he not answer some of the points?

11.11 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I am rather surprised at the Minister giving no indication of making any reply to a Debate that has gone on for over an hour. I am not suggesting that I am impressed by the arguments that have been put forward. On the contrary. I have listened carefully, and I think some of the speeches have been out of keeping with the serious arguments put forward by other hon. Members. There have been questions asked, and arguments put forward, the answers to which I can easily imagine, although it is not my place to give them. I am not concerned with the validity of the arguments, or with the time of night, but with the fact that this is the House of Commons; and I hope the Minister will tell the House why any arguments put from the opposite side of the House are not acceptable to the Government, and why the Government ask for support for the Motion.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: If the Minister would do us the courtesy of asking leave to reply to the points


that have been raised, he could probably dispose of the matter quickly. No reason has been put forward why the Universal Postal Union should be granted these privileges, save one.
At the beginning of his remarks, the Minister of State referred to the fact that this was an old organisation, which had been functioning for over 75 years without, apparently, any difficulty, in spite of the absence of diplomatic immunity. But it was hinted that there had grown up in recent years many organisations which had got this immunity and that the Universal Postal Union felt some loss of amour proper that it was not given immunity, too. That may be a reason, but I think the Minister might tell us, because apart from that, and apart from the fact that we are to get more advantage from this than we are likely to give, there has been given no reason for granting these privileges to this organisation, which for many years has done most useful work and, as far as we know, never felt the lack of these privileges. The Minister might do the House the courtesy of replying to the points raised, and making clear the reason these privileges should now be granted.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I should like to assure the House that no question of discourtesy arises. I made a very simple argument when I was invited to do so by the first hon. Member who spoke, and the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. Woods) made the other point which can be made, and none of the arguments that have since been put forward really affect those two main points.
May I reiterate what they were. First, on the question of reciprocity, if we wish this system of international organisations which has been growing apace since the end of the recent war, to be developed on a reasonable basis in which these various agencies, strictly specialised or not—and that is a point to which the hon. and learned Member opposite referred and which I need not elaborate—would enjoy the sort of privileges necessary for their reasonable operation, and no more; if we wish that privileges should not vary unnecessarily from one organisation to another and a standard set of privileges should be agreed by all nations, then surely the system which we are now seeking to implement is the right one.
A Convention was adopted in 1947 by the General Assembly for application to all specialised agencies. Procedure is laid down whereby that should be applied to any particular body. The Convention provides for a general code to be accepted. These matters have been coming up one by one as it was thought necessary to adopt the provisions of the general Convention. I venture to think that there is nothing in that as a system to which anyone on either side would object. It is much better that a reasonably thought out code should be adopted in this matter.
I made the point of reciprocity, which was that it is not only the country which is to be the home of these organisations which should grant these privileges, but that they should be reciprocal. It so happens that there are few organisations which have their headquarters here, but it may happen—and we hope it does—that there will be certain conferences and congresses of these bodies held in this country. If we do not grant reciprocity in respect of privileges which are granted abroad, I think it is certain there never will be congresses held in this country. Do we want that to happen? I think there is an undercurrent among a minority of hon. Members opposite who object to international organisation as such. I do not contend that that is general on the Opposition benches, but I am afraid it is something which came out clearly in the speeches of the particular team which has argued this matter.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have not put forward that argument at all. We asked the hon. Gentleman to deal with this question: does he say that the Universal Postal Union, which has carried on for 76 years perfectly well, cannot carry on in future unless it has all these privileges?

Mr. Younger: What I have tried to imply, and now say specifically, is that before the Convention was adopted by the United Nations there were large numbers of international organisations of many kinds, some of whom enjoyed some privileges and some of whom carried on without. It was realised that in an age when international organisation is a necessity and is carried into innumerable branches of life—economic, social and cultural, as well as political—it is right and reasonable that there should be a


system and that there should be some reasonable uniformity among all the different organisations in the sort of privileges they demand.
In all the arguments put forward, no serious, reasoned objection has been taken to the privileges granted in that general Convention. The only points made were made by hon. Members who clearly had not read the provisions of this Order. The suggestion was made that excessive privileges would be enjoyed by the people to whom diplomatic privileges apply. They are simply not to be found in this Order. The hon. and learned Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss), despite a legal training, not only had not read the Order, but obviously had not read the title. If he had, he would have known that it is the Universal Postal Union with which we are dealing.
The second point, which was made by my hon. Friend, is that if we hope to be regarded as a hospitable nation prepared to accept conferences of these organisations, then we must give them the same sort of privileges as are given by all other countries.

Mr. H. Strauss: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will look at paragraph (8) of this Order, where he will see that it says:
…the like immunity from suit and legal process …as is accorded to the envoy of a foreign Power …
Does the hon. Gentleman deny that that would give members of this Union all the immunities which I mentioned in my speech?

Mr. Younger: That is a particular thing applying to a very limited section of high officials, and not to the ordinary members of the Union.

11.21 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I am appreciative, as I am sure the House is, of the fact that eventually, under pressure, the Minister of State has made a reply. I think it was a most astonishing reply. I think it is an astonishing idea to suggest that we have to give an organisation which has gone on for some 76 years new privileges which, as far as we know, have not been asked for. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us who suggested it. The only ground he has suggested is that this is

some sort of strange army going round and round which must have diplomatic privileges. It is an astonishing thing that this Order should be brought forward without there being any trace of a reasonable argument why such privileges should be granted to this particular body. Now that the Home Secretary is enjoying so much a joke which is probably a secret, I hope he will get up and tell us why this proposal has been made.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That an humble Address he presented to His Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Universal Postal Union) Order in Council, 1950, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th July.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

TRANSPORT (EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION)

11.23 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move,
That the Draft Controlled Bodies (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
I would remind the House that on 28th June a similar set of Regulations was approved unanimously, and with support from all sides of the House. The Regulations which I am submitting tonight are similar in character to those which were then approved. These Regulations apply to the staffs of a number of controlled companies which were owned by the late railway and canal companies, before they were transferred to the British Transport Commission. Many of those controlled companies also controlled subsidiary organisations. They passed to the British Transport Commission on 1st January, 1948. As hon. Members are aware, under Section 101 of the Transport Act, the responsibility falls upon the Minister to make the necessary compensation Regulations. The Regulations which I am now submitting will apply to those controlled companies, and they are of the same pattern as those which as I indicated received the approval of the House, and applied to the road haulage undertakings.
To claim compensation, a man must have suffered loss of employment,


diminution of emoluments or worsening of conditions as a result of the transfer of the company. The cause of the claim must arise within a period of 10 years, and the claim must be made within two years of the claimant's generally being aware of the circumstances. The qualifying period is the same as in the road haulage Regulations, namely, the period of eight years of service. War service is to count; and war service, as I have previously indicated, means not only service with the military arms, but National Service in its widest sense. The usual provisions apply, namely, that any claimant who is dissatisfied with the award of the British Transport Commission can apply to the appeal tribunals of the Ministry of Labour.
In this case all pension rights that may have been earned with previous employers are safeguarded by these Regulations, and provision is made for added years of service for those over 40 years of age, recognising that it does become more difficult for a person to find alternative employment later on in life. I want to emphasise that every person who qualifies secures the minimum award of 13 weeks, and over 45, an additional year is added up to a maximum period of 26 weeks; and further, as in the case of the previous Regulations, any employee, officer or servant who can prove further expectation can secure an appropriately increased award.
I trust that, as the House has already covered the ground in a fairly full Debate on the previous Regulations, and as I have secured the approval of the House for similar Regulations, applying to other aspects of the transport undertakings, I shall receive similar support tonight, and that the House will be prepared to approve the Regulations.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: We on this side of the House do not, of course, propose to divide against these Regulations, which, as the Minister has said, resemble in many respects Regulations which were so recently before the House. We welcome them. Our only comment, I think, would be that we should have preferred to have them a little earlier; but we appreciate the difficulty, and that the other Regulations came forward, perhaps, with priority because

they deal with a rather more limited class of person. We do not consider the Regulations to be of a very controversial nature, but I should like to take the opportunity to make one or two comments, to put on record the point of view of hon. Members on this side of the House, and also, perhaps, to enable the Minister to answer one or two points and dispel some doubts that some hon. Members have in their minds with regard to these Regulations.
Now, as all hon. Members probably recollect, before 1945 there was a more or less established code of principles in legislation with regard to compensation. It was quite different from the usual code that is contained in recent legislation since 1945. Before 1945 it was the general principle that every person who was employed in an undertaking which was acquired compulsorily was safeguarded, and as a rule there was no qualifying period. In the calculation of compensation, additional years were added for special service, and in many cases an extra ten-sixtieths were added for each five years' service. We do not, of course, find any of those sorts of provisions in these Regulations, which closely follow the previous Regulations recently laid before the House.
We on this side of the House have always expressed the view that, from the point of view of the employee, the more modern code is not as good as the one that existed before 1945. In these Regulations there is a qualifying period, and not everybody is safeguarded. These Regulations do not provide compensation for anyone under the age of 18. Also, I understand that war service counts only if it follows employment and not if the war service started before the employment began. It could hardly arise now as we are in the year 1950, but there might be circumstances in which the person desiring to make a claim went straight into the Army and then took up employment with the firm concerned, and that period—

Mr. Harrison: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that under agreements prior to 1945, a man not previously employed in any undertaking taken over was granted credit for such time before actually entering into employment in that particular firm?

Mr. Wilson: Before 1945 the question of war service did not really arise. I am suggesting that it is rather a limitation that war service should apply only to men in the employment before their war service.
The major point at which these Regulations differ from the earlier ones is on the question of what it sometimes called the doctrine of customary practice; that is to say, the maximum compensation is only awarded to a man who can prove that in the employment which he was occupying at the time of nationalisation there was an established custom that he got compensation in respect of expectation of permanency of employment if his job proved to be redundant and he was removed from it. This doctrine of customary practice very much limits the compensation payable to some men; it depends entirely on the kind of employment they were previously occupying. In some cases it may not matter very much, because it is not difficult in some classes of employment to prove that there was such a customary practice. In other classes of employment, however, it is virtually impossible to do so, and, as I read these Regulations, unless a man can prove customary practice he is only entitled to the bare minimum of compensation under paragraph 5 (3) of the Second Schedule: that is, 13 weeks' compensation, and in certain circumstances if he is over 45 a maximum of 26 weeks. Well, that is not a very big sum, and I should like to know how many classes of people coming under these Regulations will be limited to the minimum sum.
We are trying to ascertain exactly to whom these Regulations apply. They seem to apply to an extraordinary variety of people. They apply to anybody, as far as I can understand, who is in the employment of a number of firms of all kinds which were controlled either by the railways or canals at the time of nationalisation. Some of these firms, whose employees are subject to these Regulations, such as Pickford's or Thomas Cook, are big concerns and although I do not know what are their terms of employment, I should think such men employed in, say, Carter Paterson's or Pickford's are probably not in a worse position by reason of the fact that the railways have been nationalised. Their employment still goes on, and I should think they are in

just about the same position as they were in before, so these Regulations hardly affect them; but there are all sorts of other concerns which apparently come within their scope.
There is a railway undertaking in Northern Ireland which used to belong to the L.M.S. Railway, and even a swimming bath. I do not know where that comes in or the terms of employment at a swimming bath. We are curious to know how many classes of people will be entitled to receive the maximum compensation under these Regulations and not the bare minimum. Because if most of the people to whom these Regulations apply are only getting the bare minimum, they are not getting good terms and these are not generous terms to offer. It is no good offering a man elaborate compensation in circumstances which are never likely to arise, and I hope that is not the case in regard to these Regulations.
My second point is a small one and appears in the last line at the foot of the first page. Paragraph 1 of these Regulations finishes with a definition of "Current net emoluments" and says:
furthermore, any amount by which emoluments exceed £4,000 shall he disregarded:
Why £4,000? It seems to me rather a curious figure and that a curious principle is involved, because compensation is not a matter of ex gratia payment. Such a payment is one made simply as a gift, but compensation is presumably a right.
I assume that the principle is that the State has been forced, for reasons which are for the benefit of the whole community, to do damage to some individual. If that is so, there must be a just scale of compensation which is a right. And the mere fact that the man is damaged largely, and that the income he had was more than £4,000, seems to be a poor reason for limiting the amount of compensation which he will get. Surely the State will not say that it will disregard those people whom it has injured most—which seems to be the principle of the Regulations as at present drafted.
My last question is with regard to the end of paragraph 2 (1) where there is a proviso which refers to the duties that the people are required to perform. It reads:
Provided that the duties which a person is required to perform shall not for the purposes


of this paragraph, be deemed to be not reasonably comparable to those which (apart from any war service) he last performed before the relevant event by reason only that they are duties in connection with activities which did not form part of the activities of the controlled body by whom he was employed before the relevant event or that they involve a transfer of his employment from one place to another within Great Britain.
Now, in transport affairs it has always been an accepted principle that men employed in transport might very well find themselves asked to move from one part of the country to another. In the days before the war, that did not matter so much, but nowadays it is often a very great hardship. Recently I met a man in the railway service who had been previously employed at Bristol but who was now transferred to Glasgow. He had a family in Bristol; he had a house there, and his children went to school in Bristol. There was no chance at all, at least certainly not for a long time, of his getting a house in Glasgow. So the effect of what I admit was the quite reasonable action of the Railway Executive was that this may was virtually, and almost permanently, separated from his wife.

Mr. John Hynd: Will the hon. Member say if this was a compulsory transfer?

Mr. Wilson: No, he went voluntarily, but the fact is that he is very largely separated from his wife. My point is that if a man was asked to do such a thing—and in the case I mentioned, although he went voluntarily, he was asked to go—it would not be unreasonable if he should refuse. The last words of this particular paragraph mean, as I understand them, that if a man refuses alternative employment within Great Britain he can be debarred from compensation. I hope that will be moderately interpreted, because in modern days it is not reasonable to ask a man to transfer great distances. Hon. Members need not be reminded of the difficulty in finding a house, and the man may have reasons for rejecting the alternative employment. I am only putting forward the suggestion that a moderate interpretation should be placed upon these Regulations and that compensation should not be denied to a man merely because he was asked to do a thing rather hard to accept.
I do not wish to press any further any of the points with regard to these Regula-

tions; they are, as I have said, quite uncontroversial, but I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the points which I have just made and assure us that these Regulations do do what they intend, and that is to provide compensation for a man who has suffered loss through nationalisation.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Bell: I should like to mention one point which I think is important because, apart from other things, it was not directly raised on the similar Regulations which we discussed for road transport; and that is that working partners are not covered by these Regulations. Hardship and anomalies may arise in that if people turn their undertaking into a limited company, and become directors, they are treated as employees and get compensation for loss of employment. If they are actually working on the job, they get compensation for loss of employment; but a partner is not an officer or servant except for, perhaps, the taking over of the assets. In the case of a small concern, the directors are very frequently the sole owners and so they get compensation for the assets and for loss of employment if they come under the Reguations.
I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether it would not be practicable to work out a method whereby persons who are really working partners—and it is not difficult to find out, because many of these are family concerns handed down—might have better treatment. There would not be, it is obvious, so many instances under these Regulations as under the Road Haulage Regulations. There might be—I do not know; but there is a clear case in equity, and the only reason the Minister has not covered this matter in the Regulations is, to my mind, that there is some practical difficulty. Cannot he at a later stage draft an amending Order to cover this point?

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: Whenever I approach Regulations concerning compensation for loss of office, I do so with suspicion. I was not born with that suspicion, but it has grown into my breast ever since the day when the Home Secretary, whom I am very glad to see on the Front Bench


tonight, produced his Regulations dealing with compensation for loss of emoluments in respect of the fire brigades. Now I look on all such Regulations, with some suspicion, and I am rather suspicious of these.
I am afraid that in some cases there will be some hardship. I should like to ask whether the Minister is prepared to watch how these Regulations operate and, if necessary, to produce amending Regulations if he is satisfied there is some hardship caused by them? There are two matters on which I would like to have assurances. One is to know what is included in the word "emoluments." On page 2 of these Regulations, there is a very full description of what emoluments cover, but I am still not clear on one or two points. Paragraph 1 (b) includes"
all bonuses, allowances, commission, gratuities, special duty and overtime pay
followed by the rather delightful words,
whether obtaining legally or by customary practice;
and it says, immediately after paragraph 1 (c),
but does not include payments for travelling, subsistence, accommodation, engagement of assistance and other expenses incurred in the course of employment, overtime and other payments that do not reflect a permanent state of affairs.
What is a payment that "reflects a permanent state of affairs"? In the Debate on Transport on 15th March, I mentioned the fact there were certain payments made to drivers of lorries; for instance, special payments such as an extra £1 a fortnight for having clear signatures on receipts or for having no accidents. Are these payments which "reflect a permanent state of affairs"? Presumably, if a man has any accidents, he loses a payment and may not qualify. A man may have been a very good employee and have qualified for these extra payments, and it is reasonable they should be taken into account in trying to work out his losses.
Another point I should like to raise is about the compensation that is payable to a man who had no right or expectation under customary practice to the payment of compensation. That is laid down in the Second Schedule, paragraph 4, (1) (i). It is stated in paragraph 4 (2) (ii) of this Schedule that such persons are to receive compensation as set out in paragraph 5 (3) of the Schedule. Here we find

how compensation is to be worked out and we find that it is to be payable only for a period of 13 weeks. That seems to me a very short period for which to receive compensation.
I know there is some addition for persons over the age of 45. But a period of only three months for payment of compensation is a very small period for a man aged 45 who loses a job and finds it very difficult to find another one. That is a matter we need not go into at this stage, however, because in a few minutes we shall be discussing it on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House; but it is another reason for asking the Minister to watch the operation of these Regulations carefully and to ask that he will issue amending Regulations if hardship is caused.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: If I may have the leave of the House, I should like to answer the few points that have been raised. I should like also to express my appreciation of the fact that these Regulations are receiving general support from all sides of the House. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) recognised that we were beginning to cover a great deal of the ground covered under previous Regulations. I do not feel it is desirable to approach these compensation Regulations from the angle that a large number of people are concerned through loss of employment or loss of pension rights.
Possibly these circumstances are likely to operate less within the group of companies covered by these Regulations than within those covered by some of the previous ones, which received the assent of the House, because the majority of these controlled companies are running along just as they were before, and there are not likely to be immediate circumstances to disrupt the normal continuity of employment. Parliament, in the main, in approving such Regulations, has had to meet probably the exceptional cases, but even if such Regulations do not apply to a great number of individuals, it is our responsibility to see that they are reasonably covered.
I do not think that the minimum provision of 13 weeks for everyone is an inadequate one when one compares it with the general practice throughout industry. I am not aware from my experience in business life generally that any person who


suffers loss of employment secures a minimum of 13 weeks' payment based on two-thirds of his net emoluments, less two-thirds of any sickness or unemployment benefit he receives. Parliament has endeavoured to satisfy itself that we make provision which gives a cushion, a period of time, to enable a man to look round for alternative employment. The circumstances of today do not present the same difficulties of alternative employment as those which arose in some difficult periods of the past.
With regard to the £4,000 limit, frankly I admit that I cannot say why the figure was not £5,000 or £3,000. A figure like that emerges as a result of discussion between the Departments and the Treasury. The figure presented to me in this case was for an award of £2,660 being two-thirds of £4,000. I do not think there would be many coming into that category, and I do not know whether that represents a very great hardship.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Sir Leslie Plummer got three times that amount.

Mr. Barnes: I did not quite catch that intervention, but I am sure that it was sensible and humourous.
I agree that in present circumstances the safeguard of requiring alternative employment must be looked at in a sensible and responsible way. My general experience from contact with the transport industry, the railways and others, is that I do not find them unreasonable in their approach to problems of this kind. The recommendations of and observations in this House, in this and in previous Debates, are interpreted as representing the views of Parliament.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Bell) about working partners, we discussed that much more fully on the previous Regulations, and I stated the reason why such a provision could not be made. In this instance, I do not think this will apply. These companies, like Pickford's, Carter Paterson, Cooks', Dean and Dawson, were long-established companies, and do not represent the same changing circumstances that some of the smaller road haulage companies can pass through in the course of a year or two, and which would change the character of an owner or part-owner.

Mr. Bell: On the Road Haulage Regulations, was not the matter discussed, and the explanation given of the position of partners who incorporated themselves after the material date, so that at the material date they were limited companies and not partners? The point I have raised now is that they were still partners.

Mr. Barnes: I do not see how they could be partners in these undertakings, because they were already owned by the railway or canal companies. I think I have answered the main points, and I hope that now the House will agree to these Regulations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft Controlled Bodies (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

UNEMPLOYMENT (MIDDLE-AGED PERSONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I hope I shall have the sympathy and support of the gallant few who remain in considering the very human problem I want to bring before the House, the incidence of unemployment among those over 50. I should like to begin by explaining why I have chosen this rather arbitrary age limit. I do not in this case have to declare my interest, I am glad to say. I have chosen it because it happens to be a statistically convenient age.
The principle remains the same, that the incidence of unemployment grows more serious as age increases. That was brought out rather strikingly in some words uttered by the Minister of Transport in the previous discussion, when he referred to compensation being higher owing to difficulties of obtaining employment at a later age. The question has been brought forward before. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) brought it up as affecting those over 60, and the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) brought it up as it affected those over 45. I am grateful to the Minister of


Labour for the recent statistics that have been given me.
The most recent figures show that there are over 70,000 men over 50 unemployed, and some 12,000 women. Compared with the vast figures before the war that may not seem very considerable, but what is important, and the fact which I am trying to draw attention to, is the high comparison of incidence. That will be more striking when it is realised that of the men who are unemployed, 37 per cent. are over 50, and of the women 16½ per cent. That figure has to be related to the various age-groups in the population. As far as I can obtain the correct figures of the working population, some 18½ per cent. of men are over 50. and some 8 per cent. of women.
The first fact brought out is that the incidence of unemployment is twice as high among men and women over 50 as it is for the average of the working population as a whole. If we take those over 50 as compared with those under 30, the ratio would be even more striking. Therefore, I think this question of unemployment amongst what we must frankly now call the middle-aged merits consideration as a very special and very serious problem. It is recognised on all sides.
The aim before everyone who is concerned with this matter is to try to remove the prejudice which undoubtedly exists in the minds of employers against engaging people who are over 50 and to see that the incidence of unemployment falls no harder on those who are middle-aged than on any other section of the age groups. The reasons for this prejudice are quite understandable even though we may deplore them. The reasons for unemployment, of course, are economic circumstances, the vicissitudes of fortune, changing techniques, and so forth.
We ought, I think, to understand the point of view of the employers and the reason why this prejudice exists. There are three main reasons. One is the difficulty of teaching new techniques to those who are rather older than the ordinary entrants into employment. Secondly, there are the superannuation schemes which are often cited as the reason for the reluctance to take on older men and women, but which the Minister himself,

in reply to a Parliamentary Question some time ago, referred to as not being a viable one. Lastly, and this applies particularly to executive posts, there is the question of what one might call the pyramid of promotion, the reluctance to bring men and women in where it is going to break the prospect of promotion for younger men and women. I was interested to notice that the Minister on 27th June, when challenged on the attitude of his own Ministry in this matter, said:
It is the same in this business as in any other business. One has to provide for apprenticeship for future employment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1950; Vol. 476. c. 2072.]
Those are the difficulties, and I feel that none of them is insuperable.
I want this question to be considered quite apart from the actual injustice done to our fellow citizens. We have in this country an ageing population. We have before us the problem of maintaining our standard of living in the future with a population which on the average is steadily growing older. I think it may well be necessary to extend the working life of our citizens in order to maintain that standard. Therefore, it is particularly vital that we should get used to using the skill, experience and knowledge of the middle-aged who might have become unemployed through no fault of their own. It may not be possible to employ them in the same positions they have been used to in the earlier part of their lives, but that we shall have to make use of their talents I am certain.
I want to give credit to the Ministry. I realise that they are fully aware of this problem. The Ministry of Labour Report for 1947 stated on page 37 that the Ministry took every occasion offered to appeal to employers not to impose unduly low age limits when engaging staff. The Ministry sought the assistance of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and pointed out that age distribution of the working population was changing and that employers must realise that their staffs will have to include a higher proportion of older men. The Association have given wide publicity to this problem. Though I give full credit to the Ministry, I do not think that merely raising the issue in that way is nearly an adequate solution
In the Ministry of Labour Report for 1948 we have these words:
Local employment committees have been able to render valuable service in connection with the work of Employment Exchanges. Among their many activities may be mentioned the consideration they gave to the difficulties often experienced by older workers in obtaining employment.
It would seem, from figures which I quoted earlier, that none of the efforts of the Minister in combating this prejudice have been wholly successful.
It seems to me that the problem is not a large one. It is not absolutely intractable. The figures are not immense. The employer whose duty it is, above all others, to set an example is the Government. It is now a fact that the Government, and the nationalised industries and local government, are employers of some quarter of the population. Therefore, it is for them to show a lead to private employers in this matter. I realise that the Government are already doing much for the ex-Service man, the Regulars in particular, whom they are taking on.
I suggest that rather more might be done for the middle-aged unemployed. I have had a long correspondence with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am grateful to him for the trouble he has taken. I learned from that correspondence that at least the Government have no prejudice against employing those who are over 50. But I cannot say, as his letters were entirely innocent of statistics. that it is clear the Government have made any drive towards trying to solve this problem along the lines which the Ministry of Labour itself has indicated.
It is true, also, that there are declining numbers in Government employment: but there is still an intake each year. If agree that there is no prejudice against taking on those over a certain age, there is certainly no bias in favour of the middle-aged. I should like to refer, in particular, to the Post Office, which is one of the largest of all the Government organisations which are employers. I was struck by the words of the Assistant Postmaster-General on 6th July, when he said:
…there are not, it is true, the same number of collections and deliveries as there were before the war because of the limitation of manpower. That is the reason."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 816.]

Almost on the same day, my eye was struck by an advertisement which said:
Postmen wanted; permanent employment available for suitable applicants under 40; 45 in the case of ex-Service men. Good promotion prospects. Opportunities for driving.
There are many postmen of our acquaintance who are more than 45, indeed who are 50. I suggest that the Minister might look to that quarter for further employment. Another case occurred in answer to a question on 21st May by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He asked about the filling of vacancies for the post of sales representative. The hon. Member related his question to those under 35 and those over 35. It may be interesting to note that if a person were over 35 the odds were 11 to 1 against his being engaged for this particular job.
But I think that Government employment is only a part solution of trying to find a way out of the difficulty of breaking down this prejudice. I should be out of order if I entered upon discussion of the prospects of legislation on this matter, but I want to enter one caveat. That is against anyone who suggests that there should be a quota for the middle-aged unemployed. A quota works well for the disabled: but I hope that no suggestion will be made that it should be applied to those who are more than 50, because I am afraid it could probably end only in a series of blind alley employments, and that is not what we want. We want to have these men and women of experience absorbed into the economic body in such a way that their talents and experience can best be used. I think that any quota would probably fail.
Finally, I have two suggestions which I should like to make to the Parliamentary Secretary, and which I think may contribute towards a solution of the problem. The first is that he should make use of the powers that he has under the Employment and Training Act, 1948. I read the Debates on that Measure, and it was a very striking fact that the accent throughout was on the employment of youth, and not one reference that I can recall from either side of the Chamber was made on the dangers of unemployment as affecting the middle-aged.
I want to ask the Minister to add one to the 524 local youth employment committees that he has already appointed;


and that is. a standing committee to advise him on this question. If he is short of names I should be willing to suggest one or two. I think the job of the committee would be to keep this matter permanently before him, and to advise on ways of promoting employment in this particular section of the community.
The second suggestion is—and I think this probably would be one of the recommendations of such a committee as I have suggested—that the Minister should use the powers he has under Section 3 (1) of the Act to promote training schemes. I should like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister's own words on the subject of that Act. He said:
It places special duties on the Minister to assist persons to select and fit themselves for employment, to obtain employment and to retain employment suitable to their age and capacity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1371.]
This is, as I have said, a comparatively small problem, but it is one which merits consideration. I should like to remind the House that in the years since the war the Minister, in conjunction with other members of the Government, has managed to train, and to incorporate into the economy of this country, many thousands of Poles, who have been retrained for the tasks that we could offer them. What I am asking is that the Ministry should take rather more forceful action to solve this problem that affects some of the middle-aged of our own nation.

12.13 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): The whole House will appreciate not only the importance of the issue which the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) has raised but also, I think, the very capable and fair manner in which he has dealt with it. Not only my Ministry but the Government as a whole are very conscious of the problem. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we speak in mere statistics, the numbers do not sound large; on the other hand, we appreciate that this great problem of the employment of people of advancing years is most vital for a number of reasons. There is, of course, primarily the humane side of the thing, which appeals to the hon. Gentleman and to me. I would

agree that that is by far the most important point in this whole problem.
The hon. Gentleman gave us some figures which cause us most serious reflection. Perhaps I may give the House some more information on this point. At December, 1949, 12 per cent. of the wholly unemployed males were in the age group 51–55, and 23 per cent. were aged 56 or over. The seriousness of unemployment among men aged 51–55 and 56 and over can be seen from the fact that the figures of 12 per cent. and 23 per cent. which I have given, compared with 7 per cent. and 11 per cent respectively of the working population. It is hardly surprising, then, that the older men remain unemployed for longer periods than the younger men. In the age group under 40, at December, 1949, 25 per cent. had been unemployed for periods between eight weeks and one year, and this proportion rose to 33 per cent. for the age group 41–50, 36 per cent. for the age group 51–55, and 37 per cent. for men over 55. For the same age groups, those unemployed for more than one year represented 6 per cent., 16 per cent., 20 per cent. and 28 per cent. respectively.
At the end of 1947, there were 3,560,000 persons in the age group 50–64, and 2,153,000 aged 65 and above. At the end of. 1949, these numbers had risen to 3,663,000 and 2,214,000 respectively: and it is estimated that by the end of 1954 there will be 4,000,000 and 2,300,000 respectively. I give the House those figures in order to show how the problem will undoubtedly increase if the present tendency is maintained. Although I suppose it could be said that the increasing age of the population would of itself compel employers to alter their opinion and outlook on this matter, that would be a very hard method to employ for the persons concerned, and we must try to encourage a different outlook among employers in genreal towards this vital question.
My right hon. Friend has discussed the question of the retention of elderly workers with the National Joint Advisory Council, and as a result the British Employers' Confederation and the T.U.C. have urged their constituent bodies not to fix arbitrary age limits for the retirement of elderly workers, but rather to encourage them to remain at work where they are willing to do so and are fully


fit and efficient to do their jobs, and where there is a need to retain their services, provided it is not to the detriment of the careers of younger persons. Similar action has been taken with the nationalised industries and with local authorities. In spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I must emphasise that the same principles apply to Government staffs.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Employment and Training Act, and suggested that by the wider use of that Act we could probably find a solution to the problems of the older workers. I presume he has in mind these words:
To provide such facilities and services as he "—
that is, the Minister—
considers expedient for the purpose of assisting persons to fit themselves for, obtain and retain employment suitable to their age and a capacity.
That is a wide enabling power, but I do not think that it has any very specific application to this particular problem. Even if it could be enforced, it is by no means certain that it would be to the advantage of the older unemployed worker. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is one thing to say that a man must be given a job, but it is quite a different thing to see that the job he is given is a suitable job to his age and physical capacity.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to training schemes. Again, able-bodied un. employed persons as well as the disabled. are admitted to courses of industrial rehabilitation, but I cannot give the House any separate statistics for the numbers being so trained, as they are not available. It is, then, a problem not of trying to enforce by legislation the employment of older people, but rather of employers looking inwardly and asking themselves whether they would like the same sort of treatment when they have passed that terribly advanced age of over 40.
The Social Survey have recently completed preliminary work for an inquiry to ascertain the views of employers about the employment of elderly persons and the attitude of the elderly workers. It is hoped that the report of the Social Survey will be ready in the autumn and will provide some further information which will help in attacking this problem.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Government employment. Substantial opportunties have been and continue to be afforded to older men and women who enter the Civil Service. In almost all competitions special age extensions are allowed to ex-Regulars of all ranks, and in the case of the men clerical and executive classes a special quota is reserved for them and a field of special examinations of a non-academic type designed to suit their particular circumstances. In the lower grade, such as messengers and so on, where competitions are not held, a preference for ex-Regular men is afforded, and these preferences act in general to help older men, although I would agree that this applies rather to men over the 40 line when we get into the higher grades.
If I may give some figures of the Civil Service, of the 435,000 non-industrial civil servants in posts on 1st April, 1950, 28 per cent. were over 50 years of age. If figures for men alone are taken, we find that 36 per cent. of the 304,000 employees were over 50, but the total is pulled down by the comparatively high proportion of young people among the women. Of the 61,000 men and women who have entered the permanent Civil Service, whether from outside or by establishment after a period of temporary service, during the year ending 1st July. 1950, 7,500, or 12 per cent., were over 50 years of age.
The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the Post Office. I cannot go into the background in the short time at my disposal, but I can give him this information so far as men are concerned. In the Post Office minor and manipulative grades, of a total of 122,551 men, the number of 50 is 37,645. or 30·7 per cent. Of other grades in the Civil Service—again I am referring specifically to men—of a total of 181,698 people, 71,411, or 39.3 per cent., are over 50 years of age.
Turning to the War Department, on 31st December, 1947, a rough survey was made for use in connection with the schemes of establishment of industrial employees, and the position today is broadly the same as it then was. We found that 66 per cent. of the employees were over 40 years of age and, out of that number, 15 per cent. were over 60 years old. Taking the non-skilled employees


also, the figures are 75 per cent. over 40 and 18 per cent. over 60 years of age. I am giving the hon. Gentleman these figures to show that the Government are alive to this problem and, in fact, if employers in general were employing the same levels of elderly people as are the Government, there would not be any problem at all.
In the Air Ministry it is estimated that 45 per cent. of the industrial employees are over 50 years of age, and in the scheme of establishment which provided for 10,000 industrials to be established, 5,700 were over 50 years of age. Now we come to the Ministry of Supply. In filling factories, at Bishopstoun in Scotland, 26.5 per cent. of the males are over 50 years of age and 13.1 of the females are over 50. At Pembury in South Wales 73.7 per cent. of the males are over 50, and here I would point out that only six women are employed. At Glascoed in South Wales, at the explosives factory, 56 per cent. of the males are over 50, and 23.2 per cent. of the females are over that age. At Chorley in Lancashire, the percentages over 50 years of age are 56 for males and 20.8 for females; and at Swinnerton, in Staffordshire, 37 per cent. of the males are over 50 and 16.2 per cent. of the females are over that age. In the Royal Aircraft factory at Farnborough, of 3,980 employees, 680 are over 50 and 312 are over 60; that means that 24.9 per cent. are over 50.
I am sorry to have had to weary the House with figures, because I know it is not simply a question of figures. I hope that the House will say that, so far as the Government are concerned, we are trying to give a most active lead. This question is vital and will become more vital if we are to make the best use of the manpower available. As a result of this Debate, I hope that employers in general will appreciate the vital nature of this problem and co-operate to the utmost of their ability to see that in these days, when manpower is the key to our economic survival, it is not right to discriminate between people below the age of 50 and those above it. As a result of the action being taken by the Government and the T.U.C. on the one hand and the Employers' Confederation on the other, I hope we shall see an alteration in this tendency to say that because people are above 50 years of age their usefulness has diminished; it has not, and what I hope will happen is that this tendency will diminish from now on.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Wednesday evening, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.